* Posts by That Llewellyn bloke

6 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Feb 2011

Electric cars not as 'green' as advertised

That Llewellyn bloke

Ooops, you forgot to mention

We are all so used to the endless devastation caused by drill and burn technology because it's normal, it's the status quo, let's not change anything, we know how this works, lets stay with it for ever... except we can't. Every single item you mentioned (I agree with all of them by the way) is also true for drill and burn, only a lot more so. Let's not even mention the amount of fuel needed again and again, day after day to drill, store, transport, refine and ship crude oil. Let's completely forget that because we all do, because it's normal. There is a cost in installing a wind turbine in the sea, it's a huge, complex process that requires us to burn fossils at present. Then what happens, the thing goes around and generates electricity, without any more drilling and burning, for many years. An oil platform in the sea, endless amounts of transportation, support, maintenance and then the oil field runs dry and you are stuffed.

I am slightly more in favour of the nuclear option, the cost of building and then de-commissioning the power plant, the cost of storage of the waste, shipping the fissile material in the first place, all those costs have been hidden by government subsidy, but they are massive. They make installing 10,000 wind turbines look like pocket money. That said, I'd have a nuclear power station in my back yard, I think they now run safely and I think we will find more creative and less wasteful systems. In the mean time we need to reduce our dependence on drill and burn as soon as we can.

That Llewellyn bloke

Very impressive

I have been corrected by numerous people who have studied this subject for amny years and in great depth. I have been informed that I was underestimating. The 7.5 kwh is for a US gallon, in the UK it is 9 kwh and all the figures I have seen estimate the total amount of electricity used by the refining industry is very close to 20% of our total consumption.

That said, I am very impressed by your breakdown and what ever the actual figure, we do use a lot of electricity to refine petrol. Is the carbon output of this figure included in the 'tailpipe emissions' of a 'super, eco, econobox diesel' No, of course not. My argument has always been that the C02 output figures are pure fiction, in just the same way as 'zero emissions' are fiction. My argument is, if we charge an electric car off the UK grid today, there is a carbon element in that power, but no where near as much as a rattle old internal combustion engine.

Finally again, I like your thorough take on this subject, I think we could get along. if you're on twitter I'm @bobbyllew

That Llewellyn bloke

Oh yes it is.

I admit you are clever at using a mass of astoundingly erudite figures, I don't agree with any of them obviously.

I spent 2 days in an oil refinery in West Pembrokshire, was given the figures by the staff as I stood next to their own sub station which was fed by their own string of pylons coming from the nearest power station. The quote I remember 'We use the same amount of electricity as a town of 250,000 people.'

But let us leave that aside, your argument really collapses when you say ' it's generally reckoned that the energy cost of extracting oil and the refining it is about 20% of the total energy content.'

Generally reckoned, by who I wonder? Why are the exact figures not known? In who's interest is it to keep these figures obscured. Not mine, not the general public or even the government.

I question those figures very strongly, the most reliable reports I have come across are from the Royal Institute of Engineers who came up with the estimated figures I posted.

Then your decision to use the wretched G-Wizz as an example of a relevant electric car reveals the true bias of your arguments, I will do the same.

I'm reading about the 1969 Dodge Challenger, the engine is 15% efficient, it does 7 miles to the gallon, I am using that as a fair representation of a fossil burning car. Oh wait, is that not fair, has the technology moved on since then? Oh, well, I'll ignore that.

2 years ago I drove a Toyota RAV E4 in California, a fully electric, battery powered car. It had driven over 100,000 miles on the same battery pack, in all that time the owner, Paul Scott, had replaced one shock absorber. Not even the brake pads.

Fossi burning cars use out dated, steam age technology that has been proved beyond all doubt to be damaging, wasteful and inefficient. They are totally reliant on an unreliable energy source that is going to run out, no matter what figures you throw around, they don't add up.

After sitting in a traffic jam for a couple of hours the other day, probably 10,000 cars, crawling along at 2 mph. All their engines churning away, a massive and pointless waste of energy. If all those cars had been electric, the gains in efficiency and lower energy use would be off the scale.

And lastly, it is technically possible to charge an electric car with renewable or carbon zero electricity, not matter how you skew and obfuscate the figures. It's not easy, it will take time, but it is possible. You cannot and will never be able do that with a car that relies on drill and burn fuel.

That Llewellyn bloke

Oh, really

Can you tell me where you got this piece of information you have posted with such confidence? Do you have a source for such a claim?

Here's a couple of little mitigating fact you seem to have overlooked.

A car with an internal combustion engine has around 6,500 parts, all individually manufactured.

An electric car has about 3,800 parts, this is mainly to do with the engine.

An electric motor is very simple, is about 80% efficient and has one moving part and will last for approximately 1 million miles.

An internal combustion engine has around 400 moving parts, is about 25% efficient and will last, at best, about 200,000 miles with many services and overhauls, 100's of spare parts, gallons of lubricating oil and toxic coolant.

The way we are measuring these two technologies is grossly unfair, to internal combustion engines. They are far far dirtier, far less reliable and take vastly more energy to run and maintain.

The only time they are comparable is when they leave the factory, at that stage they are equal, but from then on it's a rapid downhill journey for the ICE car, creating more and more damage and they grind rattle and heave their way along, wasting vitally important and diminishing energy.

That Llewellyn bloke

7.5 kilowatt hours per gallon.

I'll try a different tack. 2 cars. One petrol, one electric.

When they move along, nothing come out of the back of the electric one. Nothing. A large amount of noxious gas comes out of the petrol one. They are not equal, the electric one is cleaner in the immediate environment. It seems we can agree on that.

But, what about where the electricity comes from! Straight away, in there, furious, indignant with rage. Eco-con, green wash, it's rubbish, how dare some tree hugging idiot claim it's cleaner.

It's very important to know where fuel comes from. Any fool knows electricity doesn't just come out of the plug socket.

Petrol, on the other hand, just comes out of the pump, that's what this and every other tiresome pile of drivel like it states. The argument here is flawed, a lie.

Instead of 'where does the electricity come from,' let us ask, 'where does the petrol come from?'

The journey from oil well to petrol tank produces two thirds more Co2 than the amount that comes out of the tailpipe.

But this point is the killer, oil refineries use huge amounts of electricity, generated, as the pro drill and burn lobby endlessly harp on about, by filthy coal (actually only 30% of UK national grid) A refinery uses 7.5 kilowatt hours of electricity to refine one gallon or petrol. Where does that electricity come from, that's enough to power a Nissan Leaf 30 miles!

The REAL Co2 output from a drill and burn car is generally agreed to be between 350 to 500 grams of Co2 per kilometre. No manufacturer is going to put that on the advert, we only measure what comes out of the tailpipe. Fair do's. Then that is how we have to judge electric cars. Nothing comes out.

Don't tell me the Co2 output from an electric car is anywhere near that of a drill and burn car. It's not even absurd, it is a plain and simple lie.

That Llewellyn bloke

I'm here

I love the slant of your post, you write as though one lone voice standing up to the deluge of nonsense spun out by these stories is a terrifying prospect. The hundreds of thousands of loud mouthed, opinionated men who will no doubt defend the drill and burn economy we live in to the death are cowering because one wet liberal piped up and said, hang on, this just isn't true.

I have posted a comment, the gist of it is this.

Where does the electricity come from?

Where does the petrol come from?

How much electricity is used to make petrol?

How absurd and misleading are 'tail pipe emissions' figures

And of course, electric cars are not green, or eco, they are just cars, made in factories. When they start their lives they are no different from any drill and burn car. However, from that day on they are viable, cheaper, more efficient, cleaner, they can be charged from renewable sources, they last longer, need less servicing, fewer spare parts, go further and waste far less energy.