Carbon footprint and public transport

[urbophile]

[Apologies if this is the wrong sub-forum but I couldn't see a more appropriate place to start/continue a discussion on this. Please move if necessary.]

From the Guardian today:

Restaurants, pets and holidays: how UK’s well-off have outsize carbon footprints

Data shows baby boomers have highest emissions and London has lower footprint than rest of UK

www.theguardian.com

'Regionally, London is an outlier, with a 15% lower per capita footprint than the rest of the country. “London has incredibly high public transport,” [Dr Anne Owen, a carbon footprint expert at the University of Leeds] said. “So even in the richest areas of the city, footprints come out as being relatively small because of less reliance on cars.”'

Pretty obvious really, but good to see it stated clearly. Those of us in other cities, let alone rural areas, can only look on enviously.

I don't expect any change from this government, especially with gas-guzzler Sunak in charge, but this ought to be much higher up the agenda for Labour and other opposition parties.

It is a no-brainer that with more efficient public transport, the impending environmental catastrophe might be delayed or ameliorated, the health of those, especially children, currently affected by traffic pollution would be improved, cities would become more congenial and liveable places again. And the north-south imbalance might be rectified.

So why is investment in public transport, within and between cities, seen as an unaffordable expense?

People talk about the 'motorist lobby', but many motorists, especially in the lower income brackets, only use cars because the alternative is so awful. Time for plain speaking, which unfortunately few politicians outside the loony-right, with their twisted values, want to do.

 

[Lucy1501]

The car is seen as a symbol of freedom in a large number of countries and any attempt to regulate them (eg ULEZ or 20mph speed limits) or increase public transport usage (eg congestion charges) is generally seen as an attack on the public’s rights.

Because of this a road building or upgrade project is free to go as over budget as it likes with only minor criticism, whereas a rail project is criticised at every turn, or even all out cancelled through objections and a typically under-predicting feasibility study.

A major part of this culture that has little regard for the environment is large lobbying campaigns by various companies and political groups. One such example is carbon footprints, as you mentioned.

Carbon footprint of a person entered the public’s lexicon through an advertisement campaign by BP as an attempt to take the emissions problem from the big companies who can make a massive difference (albeit at the expense of profit) to the individuals who realistically can’t do that much in the grand scheme of things.

It will take a massive cultural change for investment in public transport and the further regulation of the car, however I don’t anticipate that happening anytime soon.

 

[zwk500]

It is a no-brainer that with more efficient public transport, the impending environmental catastrophe might be delayed or ameliorated, the health of those, especially children, currently affected by traffic pollution would be improved, cities would become more congenial and liveable places again.

This is part of the appraisal process already.

And the north-south imbalance might be rectified.

Hardly. You need investment in business to do that, and you'll never break the dominance of London, only alleviate it.

So why is investment in public transport, within and between cities, seen as an unaffordable expense?

Because its very, very expensive. But worth noting investment in serious road upgrades is also seen as unaffordable, hence Sunak's focus on Potholes. There has been a political decision to simply patch up what we have, of all modes.

 

[Bald Rick]

One thing to remember is that the carbon footprint of road transport in this country is on the cusp of falling rapidly as EV adoption picks up. At some point in the next few weeks the millionth EV will be on UK roads.

It is also true that the carbon footprint of all electrified transport is falling as the National Grid switches steadily to renewable energy. This year Grid CO2e emissions will be around 150g/kwh, the lowest ever for a calendar year, 20% down on 2019 and a third of what it was little more than a decade ago.

 

[NoRoute]

So why is investment in public transport, within and between cities, seen as an unaffordable expense? People talk about the 'motorist lobby', but many motorists, especially in the lower income brackets, only use cars because the alternative is so awful. Time for plain speaking, which unfortunately few politicians outside the loony-right, with their twisted values, want to do.

Some of the comparisons between transport projects in the UK and the rest of Europe suggest we have a problem with public transport project costs, other European countries seem to deliver projects significantly more efficiently and at significantly lower cost. So what the UK does spend on public transport appears to be spent badly, delivering far less than other countries achieve. That needs to be goal one, driving down project costs by overhauling the design, engineering and procurement of UK transport projects.

The second major issue is that city and regional public transport depends on reasonably well resourced local government with both the access to capital and the capability (engineering, project management, operations) to deliver these projects and services. But being honest, UK local government is on life-support, councils are entering insolvency, services are being cut back to the legal minimum mandatory levels. The UK has a major imbalance of power, with everything concentrated in central government and local government no longer having the funding or capabilities to resource investment in anything beyond the minimum.

It's very worrying when you look back at what the municipal corporations were doing in the early 1900s, building tramlines, waterworks, reservoirs, rolling out gas and electricity networks. It seems that our cities and towns had more capability to do stuff and make things happen over 100 years ago than they do today.

 

[talldave]

One thing to remember is that the carbon footprint of road transport in this country is on the cusp of falling rapidly as EV adoption picks up. At some point in the next few weeks the millionth EV will be on UK roads.

It is also true that the carbon footprint of all electrified transport is falling as the National Grid switches steadily to renewable energy. This year Grid CO2e emissions will be around 150g/kwh, the lowest ever for a calendar year, 20% down on 2019 and a third of what it was little more than a decade ago.

I'm sure that most EV owners aren't aware that most days fossil fuels form the largest part of the fuel used to generate electricity for their car. And of course their hallowed EVs, loaded with rare metals (some mined by children?) pay nothing in LEZ/ULEZ zones because their pollution is conveniently out of sight, out of mind. Those evil drivers burning fossil fuel under the bonnet are financially hammered disproportionately.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm sure that most EV owners aren't aware that most days fossil fuels form the largest part of the fuel used to generate electricity for their car.

I‘m sure that most EV owners aren’t aware of that - as it‘s not true.

In the last year fossil fuels have generated roughly a third of our electricity.

It would be interesting to see the stats for fossil fuel generation overnight (when most EV users will charge their cars) - on both Friday and Saturday nights just gone it would have been around 10-15%.

 

[JamesRowden]

I‘m sure that most EV owners aren’t aware of that - as it‘s not true.

In the last year fossil fuels have generated roughly a third of our electricity.

It would be interesting to see the stats for fossil fuel generation overnight (when most EV users will charge their cars) - on both Friday and Saturday nights just gone it would have been around 10-15%.

The short term effect of the extra grid power consumption of charging a particular electric car is 100% from fossil fuels until the quantity of grid power consumption reduces to a level at which no fossil fuel power is required to power the grid. The long term effect of recharging an electric car may be to encourage more renewable electricity generation. But a better solution for the environment would be to reduce the amount of energy which we consume. The technology used for electric cars can be used for electric buses and trains, with a recharging break. So long as the buses or trains have a decent load and are fairly direct, they will be more energy efficient than electric cars using the same technology.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The short term effect of the extra grid power consumption of charging a particular electric car is 100% from fossil fuels until the quantity of grid power consumption reduces to a level at which no fossil fuel power is required to power the grid. The long term effect of recharging an electric car may be to encourage more renewable electricity generation. But a better solution for the environment would be to reduce the amount of energy which we consume. The technology used for electric cars can be used for electric buses and trains, with a recharging break. So long as the buses or trains have a decent load and are fairly direct, they will be more energy efficient than electric cars using the same technology.

Plenty of electric buses appearing round the UK but we aren't getting very far with BEMU's despite proven technology as the railway industry wants to hang on for electrification which is ultimately the best solution but not the only show in town now for secondary routes at least.

 

[Mugby]

Plenty of electric buses appearing round the UK but we aren't getting very far with BEMU's despite proven technology as the railway industry wants to hang on for electrification which is ultimately the best solution but not the only show in town now for secondary routes at least.

Even the electrification which already exists isn't used to best advantage.
The prime example being Birmingham to Manchester, every inch of which has been electrified for many years. One of the most important traffic corridors in Britain and the service is operated by twenty year old Voyagers and no prospect of any electric trains for perhaps decades.

 

[Bantamzen]

I‘m sure that most EV owners aren’t aware of that - as it‘s not true.

In the last year fossil fuels have generated roughly a third of our electricity.

It would be interesting to see the stats for fossil fuel generation overnight (when most EV users will charge their cars) - on both Friday and Saturday nights just gone it would have been around 10-15%.

Looking at recent generation, wind took up most of the overnight strain but gas is ramped up during the day. So its possible that as EVs become more popular, we might need to lean on gas more, not less. Unless of course some major advancements in storage capability are made. So it could be a doubled edged sword, which is why with hindsight we really should have kept up the pace of nuclear as a mid-range solution until green storage solutions are at a capacity to take over.

But its clear that whilst gas makes up and average of around a third, it is far from being replaceable yet.

Energy Dashboard - real time and historical GB electricity data, carbon emissions and UK generation sites mapping

Live and historical GB National Grid electricity data, showing generation, demand and carbon emissions and UK generation sites mapping with API subscription service.

www.energydashboard.co.uk

Plenty of electric buses appearing round the UK but we aren't getting very far with BEMU's despite proven technology as the railway industry wants to hang on for electrification which is ultimately the best solution but not the only show in town now for secondary routes at least.

Well BEMUs exist, but not in great numbers so they are not fully proven at scale. And that's important because it means we can't really rush headlong into them as the primary solution for diesel replacement until we can be sure that they will meet the needs of the TOCs and passenger demand, and not the other way around.

 

[Bald Rick]

The short term effect of the extra grid power consumption of charging a particular electric car is 100% from fossil fuels until the quantity of grid power consumption reduces to a level at which no fossil fuel power is required to power the grid.

Thats not the case. Because of the need to balance the grid locally, there is often renewable capacity available that is not used, where generators are paid not to generate. Similarly, we can adjust the flow between import and export with Norway, France, the Netherlands (and coming bery soon, Denmark). This is more likely to happen at night (when many EVs will be being charged) and happened over the weekend for example.

Looking at recent generation, wind took up most of the overnight strain but gas is ramped up during the day. So its possible that as EVs become more popular, we might need to lean on gas more, not less. Unless of course some major advancements in storage capability are made.

Fortunately we have major advancements in storage capacity. Theres a load in the process of being built. But in any event as said above, most people will charge their EVs overnight, when we already can‘t use all the renewables we’ve got on windy nights, let alone when that under construction comes on line in the next 3-4 years.

 

[renegademaster]

I'm sure that most EV owners aren't aware that most days fossil fuels form the largest part of the fuel used to generate electricity for their car. And of course their hallowed EVs, loaded with rare metals (some mined by children?) pay nothing in LEZ/ULEZ zones because their pollution is conveniently out of sight, out of mind. Those evil drivers burning fossil fuel under the bonnet are financially hammered disproportionately.

ULEZ , while I don't agree with it, is a particulate tax and gas basically doesn't emit any, so it wouldn't make much sense to tax electric cars with it even if the grid was all gas. They pay for carbon credits through their electricity bill

 

[Bantamzen]

Fortunately we have major advancements in storage capacity. Theres a load in the process of being built.

Are these advancements being deployed at the rates we need, I'm honestly not aware of such projects so would be interested in links if you have any?

But in any event as said above, most people will charge their EVs overnight, when we already can‘t use all the renewables we’ve got on windy nights, let alone when that under construction comes on line in the next 3-4 years.

Those that can charge overnight. Remember there are an awful lot of properties that cannot, and are not likely to anytime soon. So they will be relying daytime charging when and where they can get it. Plus BEMUs and electric buses are going to be charging on and off during the day, so demand is going to be considerably higher then too.

 

[Carlisle]

One of the most important traffic corridors in Britain and the service is operated by twenty year old Voyagers and no prospect of any electric trains for perhaps decades.

Wasn’t really government’s fault, more an unforeseen byproduct of the inherent short termisim of the privatisation model.

 

[talldave]

I‘m sure that most EV owners aren’t aware of that - as it‘s not true.

In the last year fossil fuels have generated roughly a third of our electricity.

It would be interesting to see the stats for fossil fuel generation overnight (when most EV users will charge their cars) - on both Friday and Saturday nights just gone it would have been around 10-15%.

Well I used National Grid data, so I think that's true.

ULEZ , while I don't agree with it, is a particulate tax and gas basically doesn't emit any, so it wouldn't make much sense to tax electric cars with it even if the grid was all gas. They pay for carbon credits through their electricity bill

Don't forget the coal?!

ULEZ is an excuse, based on lies (see today's press), to roll out thousands of cameras in readiness for Pay Per Mile charging for all vehicles. That's from TfL, but you get criticised for pointing it out.

As an electronic engineer I've always been enthusiastic about new technologies. But EVs are the wrong solution at the wrong time with no adequate infrastructure plan. (It’s like the smart meter shambles but bigger!). We'll eventually get to fuel cells, via sodium batteries, and I can say "I told you so"...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Carbon footprint of a person entered the public’s lexicon through an advertisement campaign by BP as an attempt to take the emissions problem from the big companies who can make a massive difference (albeit at the expense of profit) to the individuals who realistically can’t do that much in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not sure it's true that most individuals can't do that much. I live in London, where public transport is very good, but even so, just thinking about the people I know, quite a few of them routinely use the car for journeys that are perfectly walkable or cycle-able for an average person. I'm therefore pretty certain that an awful lot of car journeys are down to pure laziness/unawareness (And I'm not trying to malign those people who use their cars where it really is the only reasonable way to make the journey - a lot of journeys fall into that category too).

 

[Bald Rick]

Are these advancements being deployed at the rates we need, I'm honestly not aware of such projects so would be interested in links if you have any?

800MWh of utility-scale energy storage capacity added in the UK during 2022

Solar Media Market Research analyst Mollie McCorkindale offers insight into the market's progress in 2022, another record-breaking year.

www.energy-storage.news

An article that is 10 months old, and things have moved on since then. However one quote:

During 2022, the UK added 800MWh of new utility energy storage capacity, a record level and the start of what promises to be GWh additions out to 2030 and beyond.
Indeed, the UK’s energy storage pipeline increased substantially by 34.5GW in 2022. By the end of the year, 2.4GW/2.6GWh of battery storage sites have now been connected in total.

Whether that is enough at the rates we need, I don’t know.

Well I used National Grid data, so I think that's true.

So do I, from a very good friend who works there.

In the last three months, fossil fuels (gas, coal) have generated an average of 9.81GW; renewable (wind, solar, hydro) 10.37GW. The renewable figure excludes the average 1.1GW of Norwegian hydro we’ve been importing.

With two massive windfarms in early deployment and ramping up at around 40MW a week of capacity combined, and solar also being deployed at a high rate, the renewable proportion is only going to go up, and rapidly.

 

[misterredmist]

One thing people need to be aware of is that 'Biomass' is classed as a 'renewable' source, when in fact , it is anything but..........

 

[hwl]

800MWh of utility-scale energy storage capacity added in the UK during 2022

Solar Media Market Research analyst Mollie McCorkindale offers insight into the market's progress in 2022, another record-breaking year.

www.energy-storage.news

An article that is 10 months old, and things have moved on since then. However one quote:



Whether that is enough at the rates we need, I don’t know.




So do I, from a very good friend who works there.

In the last three months, fossil fuels (gas, coal) have generated an average of 9.81GW; renewable (wind, solar, hydro) 10.37GW. The renewable figure excludes the average 1.1GW of Norwegian hydro we’ve been importing.

With two massive windfarms in early deployment and ramping up at around 40MW a week of capacity combined, and solar also being deployed at a high rate, the renewable proportion is only going to go up, and rapidly.

National Grid's October stats had zero carbon (their definition is wind, solar, nuclear, hydro and storage (pumped or battery) at 54.7%. Imports were 10% but they don't report/include the import generation mix in the their zero carbon stats.

Storage which was traditionally just pumped has more than doubled over the last few years.

There is a wave of wind and storage schemes coming on line in the next year.

 

[Bald Rick]

One thing people need to be aware of is that 'Biomass' is classed as a 'renewable' source, when in fact , it is anything but..........

Not in my figures above.

(I don’t agree that biomass is renewable, as the figures are fudged in my view).

 

[hwl]

One thing people need to be aware of is that 'Biomass' is classed as a 'renewable' source, when in fact , it is anything but..........

The word renewable has become a bit tainted because of North Yorkshire biomass hence NatGrid have started using their own zero carbon definition.
National Grid don't classify biomass as zero carbon in the stats they publish.

 

[SWT_USER]

I‘m sure that most EV owners aren’t aware of that - as it‘s not true.

In the last year fossil fuels have generated roughly a third of our electricity.

It would be interesting to see the stats for fossil fuel generation overnight (when most EV users will charge their cars) - on both Friday and Saturday nights just gone it would have been around 10-15%.

It will be interesting to see how this is managed going forwards. I charge my car overnight (and do dishwasher, tumble drying etc) because I have a cheap night rate on an EV tariff. As more and more people use EV's presumably these will get more expensive and people will just charge when convenient during they day.

 

[Grimsby town]

From a carbon perspective (leaving out other issues), EVs have a larger carbon footprint during manufacturing than ICE vehicles. I believe around 10 tonnes of carbon are emitted for every EV manufactured. 350 million tonnes of carbon will be released to replace every vehicle. That's around the equivalent of 30+ HS2s. While that number will come down, I don't see decarbonisation of manufacturing being a quick process. That's one of the reasons we need to reduce the number of cars in this country, particularly in large urban areas.

 

[talldave]

From a carbon perspective (leaving out other issues), EVs have a larger carbon footprint during manufacturing than ICE vehicles. I believe around 10 tonnes of carbon are emitted for every EV manufactured. 350 million tonnes of carbon will be released to replace every vehicle. That's around the equivalent of 30+ HS2s. While that number will come down, I don't see decarbonisation of manufacturing being a quick process. That's one of the reasons we need to reduce the number of cars in this country, particularly in large urban areas.

I have two cars, each with many years of life left in them yet. The "greenest" option for me is to do nothing and not destroy the planet building one or two more EVs, whilst paying out shedloads in road tax, insurance tax, fuel tax, and VAT which the government will spend creating yet more misery for car drivers. Sadly, Emperor Khan would rather I scrap them.

 

[Bald Rick]

It will be interesting to see how this is managed going forwards. I charge my car overnight (and do dishwasher, tumble drying etc) because I have a cheap night rate on an EV tariff. As more and more people use EV's presumably these will get more expensive and people will just charge when convenient during they day.

It will be interesting, for sure.

At present, my estimate is that average charging for the current EV fleet overnight requires, roughly, 0.5GW for the overnight period (assuming EVs are used, on average, the same as all cars, and that 2/3rd of EV charging is done overnight).

The number of EVs is likely to double over the next two years, implying that we need to find another 0.5GW. But in those two years we will have installed another 5-6GW of wind capacity, and which on average will be generating 2-2.5GW.

We are already at the point that there is more wind generaton capacity (28GW) than demand on weekend nights outside winter (<20GW). The peak instantaneous record for wind is 22GW, and that will go again on a fairly regular basis for years to come. I think its reasonable to assume that the Grid will have to deal with many more instances of too much power than not enough, and that EV uptake will be a relatievly minor part of the equation.

My guess is that supply repsonsive pricing (and marketing!) will come to the fore in that period - for example “Special offer- windy night - charge your car for 2p/kwH”.

I have two cars, each with many years of life left in them yet. The "greenest" option for me is to do nothing and not destroy the planet building one or two more EVs, whilst paying out shedloads in road tax, insurance tax, fuel tax, and VAT which the government will spend creating yet more misery for car drivers. Sadly, Emperor Khan would rather I scrap them.

I agree that scrapping the car early is not the best thing to do.

However its a fallacy that just selling an ICE to buy an EV is not helping. As long as the car being sold is still in use, then ‘we‘ (society) get full value of the carbon invested in its construction. The important thing in the transition to cleaner transport is that the most polluting vehicles in terms of pollutants harmful to human health (eg NOx and particualtes) are moved away from places where there’s lots of people, such as big cities.

 

[renegademaster]

Don't forget the coal?!

Coal is used extremely little nowadays

 

[edwin_m]

However its a fallacy that just selling an ICE to buy an EV is not helping. As long as the car being sold is still in use, then ‘we‘ (society) get full value of the carbon invested in its construction. The important thing in the transition to cleaner transport is that the most polluting vehicles in terms of pollutants harmful to human health (eg NOx and particualtes) are moved away from places where there’s lots of people, such as big cities.

But by buying an EV (assumed new), you are ensuring one EV-worth of embodied carbon and the lifetime emissions from power generation (less than IC tailpipe) and tyres (quite possibly more). There's also the possibility of increased use due to lower running costs. The second hand IC vehicle may replace an older one, which may be scrapped prematurely or just add to the pool of IC vehicles generating more emissions. So it's really not straightforward, and it's unlikely that just replacing IC mileage by EVs will [edit: double negative deleted] be enough to get to net zero unless there are disproportionately large reductions in other sectors.

At base, London has more concentration of residences and destinations. This has two consequences: firstly that residents within the city need to travel less far on average, and secondly that flows of people are enough to sustain a public transport network at good enough frequencies to be more attractive than the car for many journeys, without requiring vast subsidies. Residents outside London commuting in will probably have longer journeys than the countrywide average, but they are overwhelmingly on electric trains, which are one of the least environmentally damaging transport modes.

The above applies in varying degree in other big cities, though the lower flows mean more reliance on buses and sometimes trams rather than trains. In rural areas public transport is unlikely to be attractive for most journeys, but there may be some suburban or fairly densely populated semi-rural areas in between where better public transport could make a difference at the margin. Again this is probably going to be mostly buses.

 

[Grimsby town]

I agree that scrapping the car early is not the best thing to do.

However its a fallacy that just selling an ICE to buy an EV is not helping. As long as the car being sold is still in use, then ‘we‘ (society) get full value of the carbon invested in its construction. The important thing in the transition to cleaner transport is that the most polluting vehicles in terms of pollutants harmful to human health (eg NOx and particualtes) are moved away from places where there’s lots of people, such as big cities.

That's why I'm still pro-ULEZ and electric car. It's better than the alternatives even if ULEZ will mean that the use of some of that embodied carbon isn't maximised. That only really applies to a small proportion of diesel vehicles anyway.

I still don't think the country having over 35 million vehicles is sustainable in the future though. Both from a carbon and resource consumption perspective. Cars are used on average 1 hour in ever day. Thats an incredibly inefficient use of resources when compared to transport. There needs to be a move towards more shared ownership of vehicles, particularly in areas with dense population. The same can be said for a lot of things we own. Does everbody really need their own lawnmower. Sharing between a dozen houses would save a significant amount of resources for a very small level of inconvenience.

 

[urbophile]

Wasn’t really government’s fault, more an unforeseen byproduct of the inherent short termisim of the privatisation model.

Which itself, if not strictly 'this' government's fault, is clearly the fault of a previous one of similar ilk.