Have electric vehicles been "oversold" to the detriment of public transport, walking and cycling?

[AM9]

... There's no real issue with owning one, just use it less.

That will happen naturally as the consequences of climate change and local pollution rise in the public concience. For those that refuse to accept it, the combined effects of increasing costs of inappropriate car use and ultimately selective geographic prohibition will ensure the environmental objectives are delivered.

 

[DustyBin]

There is no need to drive into city centres. If you don't like buses, you can use a rail park and ride.

There are no large cities in the UK without a rail service. (There are cities, but they're the "technicality" ones that are cities for ceremonial reasons, i.e. St David's, St Asaph and Wells, which are just small towns in practice).



There's no real issue with owning one, just use it less.

You know, I don’t actually think we’re too far apart in our views here (in spite of appearances). Park and rides are a great concept but a ‘hard sell’ in terms of convenience, that’s the issue. To overcome this requires a change in culture/attitudes which again I think is some way off, and if you buy as much stuff as my GF does in the city centre public transport becomes impractical…. (There is actually a serious point there!).

 

[biko]

There's no real issue with owning one, just use it less

Actually there is in many cases. Cars use up a lot of space in cities while parked which also could be used for other better purposes if people would own fewer cars.

 

[HSTEd]

This is something that recently came out of my research, this is a Sankey diagram of energy use in the UK if 200GWe of nuclear was constructed in the UK.

It assumes full electrification of all ground transport, synthetic fuels for aviation, marine bunkers and plastics.
Cars/vans/motorcycles are batteries, HGVs is 65% eHighway and rail is full electrification

It assumes all domestic and commercial heating is via storage heaters.

Unfortunately in this rather insanely energy intensive model, 200GWe of nuclear is not enough, and 75.5TWh of 'auxiliary' generation is required to balance the grid.

Units are in terawatt hours per year



(Car use is not an energy problem is the summary of the result)

 

[Bald Rick]

Quite a grid needed for that, one assumes?

 

[HSTEd]

Quite a grid needed for that, one assumes?

Indeed

Probably have to adopt a UHVAC backbone, indeed the power demands get so high that gas insulated lines might actually become economically reasonable! (735kV up to 1000kV, probably the latter) I'm supposed to be talking to some actual grid experts about that at some point soon.

A lot more distribution transformers, and probably 20/22kV HV circuits in place of 11kV.

Probably power line signalling based fractional control of storage heaters and immersion heaters, so that the demand on the system can be kept "trimmed" as close as possible to the available system supply.
But to stay vaguely on topic, ground transport is an irrelevance in a decarbonised energy system.

Aviation fuel, once losses are included, consumes more power than the entire electric ground transport infrastructure!

 

[johncrossley]

Whilst there may be scepticism about electric vehicles for personal use, electric buses seem to be widely accepted with large scale rollouts in London and in many countries across the world.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst there may be scepticism about electric vehicles for personal use, electric buses seem to be widely accepted with large scale rollouts in London and in many countries across the world.

Two reasons -

1) by their nature they have a stop start cycle and low speeds; ideal for electric and regeneration braking
2) bus companies will take the longer term view; yes electric buses are more exoensive upfront, but the savings in fuel and maintenance are consuderabke.

(2) is a factor that many people don’t take into account when they say electric cars are too expensive. Yes, a VW ID 4 might be 10k more expensive than a similarly appointed Tiguan from new, but it will hold its higher value, and if you are saving £150 a month in fuel that soon adds up.

 

[packermac]

Two reasons -

1) by their nature they have a stop start cycle and low speeds; ideal for electric and regeneration braking
2) bus companies will take the longer term view; yes electric buses are more exoensive upfront, but the savings in fuel and maintenance are consuderabke.

(2) is a factor that many people don’t take into account when they say electric cars are too expensive. Yes, a VW ID 4 might be 10k more expensive than a similarly appointed Tiguan from new, but it will hold its higher value, and if you are saving £150 a month in fuel that soon adds up.

I do not believe when electric cars reach a critical mass you will be making a fuel saving as any government (other than perhaps those in the middle east) will have to look at a way of recouping the lost fuel duty, which to me means taxing the electricity for electric vehicles.

 

[Bald Rick]

I do not believe when electric cars reach a critical mass you will be making a fuel saving as any government (other than perhaps those in the middle east) will have to look at a way of recouping the lost fuel duty, which to me means taxing the electricity for electric vehicles.

How do you tax electricity just for electric vehicles? What if, like one of my friends, you charge from your own solar panels in summer?

The answer will be road pricing, which will apply to ICE vehicles as well as fuel duty, so the differential will still be there.

 

[davewolves]

That will happen naturally as the consequences of climate change and local pollution rise in the public concience. For those that refuse to accept it, the combined effects of increasing costs of inappropriate car use and ultimately selective geographic prohibition will ensure the environmental objectives are delivered.

Well as someone with a massive interest in cars let me run some facts past you!
1. Electric cars are great for the planet, this is false the contents of the batteries are highly poisonous and so far are unrecyclable or 10% maximum (i worked in the recycling trade) 8-10 years lifespan and the batterie is fried.
2.cost of replacement cells vs the resale value of the car will see it uneconomic to replace them so a car with less than 10 years life is now ready for scraping vs 20 yrs plus life in the internal combustion variant.
3. will Electric be the new diesel? Porsche & VAG have been working on 'Synthetic fuels' these will work in combustion engine cars and are greener than any electric cars now or in the future, so can be used in Petrol/Diesel & any hybrid cars keeping many older cars on the road no need for more new cars even more so electric cars meaning millions of healthy road legal 'Oil burners' won't need scraping
4. But electric power is better thanks to solar & wind farms, this is another false claim think of one wind turbine the bit all green politicians never talk about is what is used to build them, Steel, aluminium, Carbon Fibre (for the blades) and tonnes of concrete each turbine produces 35 years worth of emissions in production yet has a lifespan of a maximum of 27 in perfect warm dry conditions this falls to 15-17 in offshore wind farms

let us not forget if you are in your 40's the same 'the planet will die in 12 years' predictions was given to us in 1989 and repeated again in the early 2000's vast seaside towns will be lost to the sea forever we was promised, funny Barmouths still there along with its mighty rail viaduct.

always ask why the push to one power source once we are all on it they can tax the living daylights out of it and there will be no alternatives we will have to choose between heat/cooking or charging the car yet those pushing for all this are buying seafront homes (Al Gore) pushing for socialism (Greta the climate pixie Thunburg) or the rich don't want working classes flying to their nice sunny resorts any more buy taxing flights out of the reach of joe public

if electric was the way ahead & climate issues was a major problem then why when BR was privatised was all the diesel engines not replaced by the majority of electric locomotives, in fact, we seen more electrics scraped replaced by diesel not kept in service till a better freight/Passenger electric came to market

 

[py_megapixel]

I do not believe when electric cars reach a critical mass you will be making a fuel saving as any government (other than perhaps those in the middle east) will have to look at a way of recouping the lost fuel duty, which to me means taxing the electricity for electric vehicles.

Or a charge based on miles driven. Which, as @Bald Rick points out, would also apply to ICE cars, at an artificially high rate (not forgetting that ICEs will be on their way out by then) and/or on top of fuel duty.

Still, I think it would require a pretty major revolution in the industry, with the time people keep cars and the kind of people current EVs are targeting, for a new EV today to still be in use by the same person by the time they are more popular than ICE cars. And I would hope by the time they come to replace their first EV they would be fairly sold on the practical benefits of one too, not just cost - less noise and vibrations, better acceleration, and the convenience of never having to visit a petrol station.

 

[johncrossley]

Well as someone with a massive interest in cars let me run some facts past you!

Your post is primarily about climate change, but the primary reason for using electric vehicles is air pollution. Air pollution from motor vehicles affected people living in urban areas in 1989, early 2000s and today, leading to health problems and premature death.

 

[Bald Rick]

Electric cars are great for the planet, this is false the contents of the batteries are highly poisonous and so far are unrecyclable or 10% maximum (i worked in the recycling trade) 8-10 years lifespan and the batterie is fried

Lithium batteries have been around for a century, and manufactured in quantity for 50 years. Yes car applications need a lot, but so do lots of other applications. And there’s much study going into their recycling - indeed when removed from cars they are still suitable for energy storage systems, of which we are going to need a lot

cost of replacement cells vs the resale value of the car will see it uneconomic to replace them so a car with less than 10 years life is now ready for scraping vs 20 yrs plus life in the internal combustion variant.

Then why are 8 year old Teslas still selling for £25-£30k? Doesn’t sound like being ready for scrap.

But electric power is better thanks to solar & wind farms, this is another false claim think of one wind turbine the bit all green politicians never talk about is what is used to build them, Steel, aluminium, Carbon Fibre (for the blades) and tonnes of concrete each turbine produces 35 years worth of emissions in production yet has a lifespan of a maximum of 27 in perfect warm dry conditions this falls to 15-17 in offshore wind farms

Can you post a source for this.

There is very little concrete used in offshore wind.

How many embedded emissions are used in the construction of a coal power station?

 

[HSTEd]

There is very little concrete used in offshore wind.

My understanding is Offshore wind actually uses more concrete per megawatt-year than nuclear! My understanding is primarily in gravity bases for some offshore wind turbines, and increasingly used in the pylons in the form of prestressed concrete.

But still not a significant amount.

Embedded emissions from steel and concrete in a nuclear plant will come to <<1gCO2/kWh over its lifetime.

 

[py_megapixel]

1. Electric cars are great for the planet, this is false the contents of the batteries are highly poisonous and so far are unrecyclable or 10% maximum (i worked in the recycling trade) 8-10 years lifespan and the batterie is fried.

In case you hadn't noticed, extracting, refining, transporting and burning oil produces all kinds of highly poisonous by-products and is terrible for the environment too.
Also, the issue isn't climate change in general - it's local, point-of-use emissions.

4. But electric power is better thanks to solar & wind farms, this is another false claim think of one wind turbine the bit all green politicians never talk about is what is used to build them, Steel, aluminium, Carbon Fibre (for the blades) and tonnes of concrete each turbine produces 35 years worth of emissions in production yet has a lifespan of a maximum of 27 in perfect warm dry conditions this falls to 15-17 in offshore wind farms#

Can you cite those figures? Not trying to be confrontational here, just interested

let us not forget if you are in your 40's the same 'the planet will die in 12 years' predictions was given to us in 1989 and repeated again in the early 2000's vast seaside towns will be lost to the sea forever we was promised, funny Barmouths still there along with its mighty rail viaduct.

I think you'll find a substantial portion of the line it's on has been damaged by the sea and had to be either rebuilt or modified to withstand far worse conditions. On some coastal lines this has happened multiple times.
It's notoriously near-impossible to get a mortgage on a house in nearby Fairbourne, for example, because soon it will also be washed into the sea, and saving it is considered uneconomical.
The damage caused by climate change is a real thing.

always ask why the push to one power source once we are all on it they can tax the living daylights out of it and there will be no alternatives we will have to choose between heat/cooking or charging the car

Think about how many fuel sources you actually use in your everyday life. Maybe your home is heated by natural gas and you burn petrol in your car. But everything else is electric.
If the government wanted to "tax the living daylights" out of energy, they could apply huge taxes to gas and to electricity (given that they already apply huge taxes to petrol) and pretty much everyone would be affected.

pushing for socialism (Greta the climate pixie Thunburg) or the rich don't want working classes flying to their nice sunny resorts any more buy taxing flights out of the reach of joe public

This is just starting to read like a delusional conspiracy theory at that point. I'm not even going to respond to it beyond pointing out that what I suspect what you mean by "socialism" is in fact "communism", and that's a very important distinction.

if electric was the way ahead & climate issues was a major problem then why when BR was privatised was all the diesel engines not replaced by the majority of electric locomotives, in fact, we seen more electrics scraped replaced by diesel not kept in service till a better freight/Passenger electric came to market

I'm not aware of any recent situation where a significant number of electric trains have seen replacement with diesel ones. In fact, the Turbostars were the last passenger diesel trains available to be built within the UK. Most things built since have been either pure electric or bi-mode, with the bi-modes being used to take advantage of new electrification where available - resulting in less diesel burned, not more. Some pure diesel units have been introduced since then, imported from abroad, but not to replace electric units.

Because why would they? Electric operation is much cheaper and more efficient for TOCs - it's in their interest to use it.

 

[Bald Rick]

My understanding is Offshore wind actually uses more concrete per megawatt-year than nuclear!

But still not a significant amount.

Most offshore uses steel piles, with steel / composite towers and composite blades.

There’s concrete in the substation foundations, but that’s about it.

 

[krus_aragon]

The car on my drive has just turned 17 years old. I bought it 5 years or so ago, for less than ₤1000. People shopping on that kind of budget are going to be waiting a long while before an electric vehicle falls into their price range.

I'm in a new job now, and hope to be shopping for a new (to me) car in the next year or two, with a budget closer to ₤3000. But I'm pulled in two directions on what kind of car to aim for.

On the one hand, my daily commute is now just under an hour's drive each way, primarily on dual carriageway. I'd like to have something small and economical, and would consider electric if and when they fall into my price bracket.

On the other hand, we're now a family of five (or seven if you count the in-laws round the corner) and a smaller car won't do. Three child seats across in the back is tight enough as it is!

I'm the only one of the seven of us who has a license, so family outings* require public transport connections or shuttle runs. Having seven seats available would be very desirable, but that's going to make commuting more expensive. And having two cars to one driver seems silly.

An added complication is that while we've just bought our first house (yay), it's an ex-council terrace house where the dedicated communal parking is over the road. Running a cable to charge an EV isn't straightforward to do. And my workplace doesn't have any charging facilities (yet).

I was aware of the EV issues with the house, but decided it wasn't a dealbreaker. At some point in the coming years, I'll have to badger/lobby the council and neighbours to come up with a practical scheme for charging residents' cars. Minds should sharpen as we approach 2030, so it's a battle for the future.

In the meantime, I'm probably going to be looking at a big fossil-fueled MPV/SUV next year, to tide us over until the infrastructure and second-hand electric vehicles are available to us.


*e.g. weekly grocery and shopping outings on a Saturday - it seems a lifetime since we were doing that!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually there is in many cases. Cars use up a lot of space in cities while parked which also could be used for other better purposes if people would own fewer cars.

There is an issue in some terraced streets in the UK where the road is too narrow for parking without the pavement being narrowed. Beyond that, in the UK, car ownership causes very few problems, only car use.

Of course if you own a car you're more likely to use it, but the link then becomes tenuous.

Countries with higher density populations, e.g. the Netherlands, probably suffer more.

I'm the only one of the seven of us who has a license, so family outings* require public transport connections or shuttle runs. Having seven seats available would be very desirable, but that's going to make commuting more expensive. And having two cars to one driver seems silly.

Does it, though? On the face of it it does, but when you think more deeply into it many families have a cheap runaround for local use and a large family car for longer-distance trips. Stereotypically the man has the fancy one and the woman the small one (though obviously stereotypes don't necessarily hold any more), but there are plenty of families where the whole family tends to go out together most of the time (see: whole families in Tesco on a Saturday morning), and they choose the one appropriate to that journey. Obviously in some cases you need two because the two adults drive to different workplaces, but if you look round the South East very often one of them will commute by train so one gets very little non-leisure use.

 

[HSTEd]

There is an issue in some terraced streets in the UK where the road is too narrow for parking without the pavement being narrowed. Beyond that, in the UK, car ownership causes very few problems, only car use.

Even on the street I live on, the problem is too many cars because modern cars (including allowance for manouver in and out of a space) are not much shorter than the house is wide.

It would probably be best to convert to one of those brick covered streets with narrower pavements and diagonal parking.

 

[biko]

There is an issue in some terraced streets in the UK where the road is too narrow for parking without the pavement being narrowed. Beyond that, in the UK, car ownership causes very few problems, only car use.

Terraced streets are the most obvious problem, but more generally cities around the world are designed around space for cars. A lot of space is wasted by having so many vehicles standing still for most of the day. So I would argue that having off-street parking is undesirable in most cases. The environment can become much more liveable and nice by not having to fill a street with parked cars.

Of course if you own a car you're more likely to use it, but the link then becomes tenuous.

That is also true, but the main problem is the space that is allocated to storing unused cars.

Countries with higher density populations, e.g. the Netherlands, probably suffer more.

The Netherlands have a higher population density over all, but if you only look at urban areas, you will find the UK and the Netherlands are quite similar with respect to density.

 

[johncrossley]

The Netherlands have a higher population density over all, but if you only look at urban areas, you will find the UK and the Netherlands are quite similar with respect to density.

Yes, and I wonder how different would the densities be if you didn't include the area north of Leeds and west of Bristol. Most European towns (including the UK) were built before cars so are typically compact.

 

[AM9]

The more die-hard motorists justify (mainly to themselves) that they could not possibly live without polluting and CO2 producing IC vehicles, the more abrupt a change they will be facing in about 10-15 years. However much the EV (and motoring in general), lobby protests, the rate of climate change won't abate. Governments at last, have realised this and are trying to map a change that minimises the negative social and economic aspects of carbon creating lifestyles. No political party that pretends that they can fix climate change yet avoid these awkward changes is remotely electable, apart from administrations like Brazil's - or even the US's recent aberration of trusting Trump, so it is necessary for all countries to follow a similar route.
So whether those here (and elswhere on other social media platforms) clutching at straws with selective bad science 'facts' about how everything green is worse than carrying on as we are, are coming from a belief that their arguments are valid, or are just trying to make a case why 'they' shouldn't have to make their contribution to reducing climate change, the impact will be the same as changes are coming that will affect everybody.

 

[paul1609]

Indeed

Probably have to adopt a UHVAC backbone, indeed the power demands get so high that gas insulated lines might actually become economically reasonable! (735kV up to 1000kV, probably the latter) I'm supposed to be talking to some actual grid experts about that at some point soon.

A lot more distribution transformers, and probably 20/22kV HV circuits in place of 11kV.

Probably power line signalling based fractional control of storage heaters and immersion heaters, so that the demand on the system can be kept "trimmed" as close as possible to the available system supply.
But to stay vaguely on topic, ground transport is an irrelevance in a decarbonised energy system.

Aviation fuel, once losses are included, consumes more power than the entire electric ground transport infrastructure!

The power line signalling thing interests me. Ive had an "economy 7" power supply since I moved to this house 11 years ago. In all that time the cost gap between the off peak/peak units has decreased. In January this year it actually got to the point where it was cheaper to move to a single rate tarrif which I did although I still have a dual rate meter. As a consequence I no longer do stuff like the washing and water heating overnight. It seems to me that the electricity industry at least in this area Kent Coast no longer wants domestic customers to use off peak electricity?

 

[Bald Rick]

The power line signalling thing interests me. Ive had an "economy 7" power supply since I moved to this house 11 years ago. In all that time the cost gap between the off peak/peak units has decreased. In January this year it actually got to the point where it was cheaper to move to a single rate tarrif which I did although I still have a dual rate meter. As a consequence I no longer do stuff like the washing and water heating overnight. It seems to me that the electricity industry at least in this area Kent Coast no longer wants domestic customers to use off peak electricity?

That’s interesting - I’m about to swap onto a tariff that has peak rate at 14p/kWh, and off peak at 5p. The same provider (octopus) has an agile tariff that tracks wholesale prices by the half hour, and there are periods where you get paid to use electricity!

 

[skyhigh]

What if there was a national network of EV chargers, and your home electricity supplier issued you with a card which you scan at the charger to have your car electricity charged to your home energy bill?
Such chargers could be installed en-masse on terraced residential streets making it easy for people to charge.

Missed this post, but something very similar already exists (and I use it) - Octopus offer a card that works with a significant range of suppliers, and charges use to your electricity bill, often at reduced rates compared to pay as you go from the charge operator.

 

[paul1609]

That’s interesting - I’m about to swap onto a tariff that has peak rate at 14p/kWh, and off peak at 5p. The same provider (octopus) has an agile tariff that tracks wholesale prices by the half hour, and there are periods where you get paid to use electricity!

It shows how much regional variation there is in costs now I'm paying 11.65p/kWh. Octopus clearly don't want Kent Business they are quoting me 21.22/20.19 peak 12.36/11.59 on a 24 m fixed/various basis thats more expensive than Scottish Power and not even in u switches top 10! (i'm electricity only as we don't have mains gas here)

 

[Iliketrains123]

The more die-hard motorists justify (mainly to themselves) that they could not possibly live without polluting and CO2 producing IC vehicles, the more abrupt a change they will be facing in about 10-15 years. However much the EV (and motoring in general), lobby protests, the rate of climate change won't abate. Governments at last, have realised this and are trying to map a change that minimises the negative social and economic aspects of carbon creating lifestyles. No political party that pretends that they can fix climate change yet avoid these awkward changes is remotely electable, apart from administrations like Brazil's - or even the US's recent aberration of trusting Trump, so it is necessary for all countries to follow a similar route.
So whether those here (and elswhere on other social media platforms) clutching at straws with selective bad science 'facts' about how everything green is worse than carrying on as we are, are coming from a belief that their arguments are valid, or are just trying to make a case why 'they' shouldn't have to make their contribution to reducing climate change, the impact will be the same as changes are coming that will affect everybody.

To stand a chance at preventing climate change, you would need a successful green movement in places like China. Not Europe and Australia. That is never going to happen for obvious reasons.

 

[py_megapixel]

To stand a chance at preventing climate change, you would need a successful green movement in places like China. Not Europe and Australia. That is never going to happen for obvious reasons.

But that doesn't mean Europe shouldn't try to help, does it?

 

[edwin_m]

To stand a chance at preventing climate change, you would need a successful green movement in places like China. Not Europe and Australia. That is never going to happen for obvious reasons.

However the Chinese government seems to have got the message about climate change and is trying to do something about it, at least in part because they see the economic potential of being a leader in this field. Yes they are still a big polluter but because they do so much manufacturing for export they've effectively imported the pollution those activities cause. We also have the Chinese to thank for making solar power economically competitive by reducing the manufacturing cost for PV panels.