Which electric car to buy?

Wildcamper said:
Last week two senior academics from Oxford University with extensive experience in an alternative fuelled future questioned where the electricity was too come from for an electric future. Today in the Sunday Times Dominic Lawson highlights the same question but covers a larger remit.

For those interested in an electricity demand for all cars to be electric do the following calculation and confirm my numbers yourself, or come up with something different. Happy for all, any, to disagree. Let's see your calculations.

DVLA says there are 40 milion cars.
Assume all will be electric
Max power out put of an electric car about 50kWhr
So max demand if all cars out running at fully power (unrealistic but wait for correction) is 40 million X 50 kWh
Divide by 1000 to get MW and by another 1000 to get GW. The new Hinckley Point should produce 3.8GW on completion. Divide the total GW by 3.8 to get the number of Hinckley Point equivalents needed. Now some corrections. Not all cars are used all the time, average usage is around 10%. Divide total Hinckley Points by 10. Second correction, not all cars are used at full power all the time. On cruise my 2018 Golf uses about 1/2 the max rated output. Assume this is true for electric vehicles so divide the 10% number of Hinckley Points by 2. You now have an estimate of the number of Hinckley Points needed just for the cars assuming the same vehicle density. You should get 100 Hinckley Points! If one is out by 50%that is 50 Hinckley Points - realistic or not. Have rounded up some of the numbers to make the calculation easy. If one adds in all the heat pumps to facilitate the removal of gas boilers - well not done that but it will be a lot bigger. Converting 50 or 100 Hinckley Points into wind, offshore or onshore is frightening. Convert to solar panels, I don't really want to go there!

The electric solutions is only possible if something like 75% of us give up personal transport! Have not added in the environmental scaring of Cobalt, Lithium and Neodymium mining - look these up plenty of information.

Am not against electric cars, they are a great drive and would cut inner city pollution dramatically. If they were realistic I would get one tomorrow.

Another way to do this is to take the total petrol and diesel used in the UK, convert to electricity equivalents, correct for inefficient ICE energy transfer to motive power to efficient electricity conversion. What do you get.
Click to expand...
Dominic Lawson the former “intelligence asset” and son of Nigel Lawson who I think was banned from the BBC airwaves for his climate sceptic campaigning.

EDM is Early Day Motion btw. F4E6A01B-14E8-434D-AAD6-154581D68D35.png

These are incredibly well known climate sceptics.
Are the Oxford Academics sponsored by anyone? Perhaps an oil company?
I know I haven’t answered your longer questions as I gave up after reading the people you were quoting.

CB05605D-7524-4642-958D-FE3A7C2DD9BA.png
I should say I’ve got nothing against Nigella Lawson in fact coincidentally I used her recipe when I cooked the kids pancakes this morning!
But I wouldn’t quote her in a discussion about global warming either.
 
Last edited:
Amarillo said:
This EU report suggests 80% electric car use will require about 15% of the UK's power going to electric cars.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that @Amarillo, interesting read which outlines both the benefits and the scale of some of the problems to be faced. I noticed they think an extra 150GW of generation will be required in the EU-28 and the Energy used by EV will increase over 300 times.

I believe we do need to drastically reduce ICE but I can’t see the route to get there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Lambeth Cali said:
Dominic Lawson the former “intelligence asset” and son of Nigel Lawson who I think was banned from the BBC airwaves for his climate sceptic campaigning.

EDM is Early Day Motion btw. View attachment 81670

These are incredibly well known climate sceptics.
Are the Oxford Academics sponsored by anyone? Perhaps an oil company?
I know I haven’t answered your longer questions as I gave up after reading the people you were quoting.

View attachment 81671
I should say I’ve got nothing against Nigella Lawson in fact coincidentally I used her recipe when I cooked the kids pancakes this morning!
But I wouldn’t quote her in a discussion about global warming either.
Click to expand...
Y
Lambeth Cali said:
Dominic Lawson the former “intelligence asset” and son of Nigel Lawson who I think was banned from the BBC airwaves for his climate sceptic campaigning.

EDM is Early Day Motion btw. View attachment 81670

These are incredibly well known climate sceptics.
Are the Oxford Academics sponsored by anyone? Perhaps an oil company?
I know I haven’t answered your longer questions as I gave up after reading the people you were quoting.

View attachment 81671
I should say I’ve got nothing against Nigella Lawson in fact coincidentally I used her recipe when I cooked the kids pancakes this morning!
But I wouldn’t quote her in a discussion about global warming either.
Click to expand...
The two Academics are not sponsored by oil. They published a letter in the Sunday Times last week. Professor Peter Dobson and Professor Peter Edwards.

Dominic Lawson and Nigella are very different people, one a cook and the other a well known columnist in the Sunday Times who has been writing for years. I suggested reading Dominic not Nigella.
 
Wildcamper said:
Y

The two Academics are not sponsored by oil. They published a letter in the Sunday Times last week. Professor Peter Dobson and Professor Peter Edwards.

Dominic Lawson and Nigella are very different people, one a cook and the other a well known columnist in the Sunday Times who has been writing for years. I suggested reading Dominic not Nigella.
Click to expand...
Oxford University is facing criticism after the UK’s principal climate science denial group appointed a second professor to its ranks.

Emeritus Fellow Professor Peter Dobson has defended his decision to accept a position on the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)’s academic advisory council, just weeks after his colleague Professor Peter Edwards joined the organisation as trustee.

Campaigners said that they were “saddened” by the recent appointments to the GWPF, an organisation founded by climate science denier and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Nigel Lawson in 2009 to combat what it described as “extremely damaging and harmful policies” designed to address climate change.

The Oxford University Climate Justice Campaign, which includes students, alumni and academics, is making renewed calls for the institution to sever all ties with the fossil fuel industry, after publishing a report claiming the University had received £11 million from fossil fuel firms since 2015.

“By joining the GWPF Dobson lends legitimacy to the lies and falsehoods that GWPF has perpetuated,” a spokesperson told DeSmog.

“As long as Oxford receives money from the fossil fuel industry it raises the question of whether academics like Dobson are incentivised to join climate denying think-tanks, and to defend the fossil fuel industry, due to the money their departments received from these companies.”

I don't like arguing on this forum, but when it's climate-denying nonsense and opinion masquerading as fact it's difficult to ignore.
The Sunday Times letter is behind a paywall. Did the two professors mention their connection to the Global Warming Policy Foundation?
 
Last edited:
ArunAlec said:
Add some track and they’ve got the makings of a train!
Click to expand...
Dream on, they cannot electrify large parts of the rail system due to lack of trained engineers/cash.
The possibility of erecting such systems on the road network and of course having dual powered lorries in enough numbers to make it work is just delusional, probably.
 
Bellcrew said:
Dream on, they cannot electrify large parts of the rail system due to lack of trained engineers/cash.
The possibility of erecting such systems on the road network and of course having dual powered lorries in enough numbers to make it work is just delusional, probably.
Click to expand...

The strategic road network (SRN) in the UK is 4,500 miles (motorways and trunk A roads). Electrifying one lane on the entire SRN is plausible, and would cut carbon emissions significantly if haulage operators could be convinced to upgrade to dual fuel trucks.
 
ArunAlec said:
Or they could just use the existing rail network and trains?
Click to expand...

Or, instead of building the hideously expensive HS2 just build a dedicated freight terminal off the M6 Birmingham and A406 London and run a dedicated freight line between the two.
 
Seems daft, just use batteries like Tesla semi
3ABDE24D-E7E2-4275-B0D5-6E3DE138F93E.png
 
soulstyledevon said:
Back on topic…
What’s mini planning?

www.mini.com

THE MINI VISION URBANAUT.

Let #NEXTGen and its web series give you unique insights into innovations by the BMW Group, as well as the future of mobility – and beyond. Tune in and make sure you check back regularly for the latest product innovations, cutting-edge and entertaining storytelling.
www.mini.com www.mini.com
Click to expand...
Urban camper? Does it come with a popup roof?
 
willwander said:
Seems daft, just use batteries like Tesla semi
View attachment 82164
Click to expand...
Batteries could be the next big environmental issue. Extract from an article I read:
And now because of China’s EV dominance, that country is discovering a new and severe environmental problem. EV batteries are toxic and carry great power to pollute. Early on, the problem was less evident. These batteries last for 5 to 8 years so it took time before China needed to find ways to dispose of them safely. But in the last year, China had to get rid of some 200,000 tons of these things. The government expects that number to grow to 800,000 tons over the next four years, an annual growth rate of over 40%.
EV batteries contain heavy metals such as cobalt and nickel, neither of which break down in nature. They also contain manganese that can pollute soil and water as well as air. Only 500 micrograms of magnesium in a cubic meter of air will produce manganese poisoning in most people. As lithium batteries degrade, they produce hydrogen fluoride and other pollutants. China has already had to deal with a bout of manganese poisoning tied to battery disposal in Guangdong Province. To give a sense of levels of toxicity, one scientist involved in the Guangdong incident, Professor Wu Feng of the Beijing Institute of Technology explained that one “20-gram cell phone battery can pollute three standard swimming pools of water, and if abandoned on land, it can pollute one square kilometer for 50 years.”
 
GrumpyGranddad said:
Batteries could be the next big environmental issue. Extract from an article I read:
And now because of China’s EV dominance, that country is discovering a new and severe environmental problem. EV batteries are toxic and carry great power to pollute. Early on, the problem was less evident. These batteries last for 5 to 8 years so it took time before China needed to find ways to dispose of them safely. But in the last year, China had to get rid of some 200,000 tons of these things. The government expects that number to grow to 800,000 tons over the next four years, an annual growth rate of over 40%.
EV batteries contain heavy metals such as cobalt and nickel, neither of which break down in nature. They also contain manganese that can pollute soil and water as well as air. Only 500 micrograms of magnesium in a cubic meter of air will produce manganese poisoning in most people. As lithium batteries degrade, they produce hydrogen fluoride and other pollutants. China has already had to deal with a bout of manganese poisoning tied to battery disposal in Guangdong Province. To give a sense of levels of toxicity, one scientist involved in the Guangdong incident, Professor Wu Feng of the Beijing Institute of Technology explained that one “20-gram cell phone battery can pollute three standard swimming pools of water, and if abandoned on land, it can pollute one square kilometer for 50 years.”
Click to expand...
And don't forget the vast environmental pollution that comes with the mining and extraction of the rare earth metals needed for electric motors and generators. Most of this is China based as well. I would not be surprised if the world looks back in years to come and asks: was electrification a good thing or just moving the problem?
 
GrumpyGranddad said:
Batteries could be the next big environmental issue. Extract from an article I read:
And now because of China’s EV dominance, that country is discovering a new and severe environmental problem. EV batteries are toxic and carry great power to pollute. Early on, the problem was less evident. These batteries last for 5 to 8 years so it took time before China needed to find ways to dispose of them safely. But in the last year, China had to get rid of some 200,000 tons of these things. The government expects that number to grow to 800,000 tons over the next four years, an annual growth rate of over 40%.
EV batteries contain heavy metals such as cobalt and nickel, neither of which break down in nature. They also contain manganese that can pollute soil and water as well as air. Only 500 micrograms of magnesium in a cubic meter of air will produce manganese poisoning in most people. As lithium batteries degrade, they produce hydrogen fluoride and other pollutants. China has already had to deal with a bout of manganese poisoning tied to battery disposal in Guangdong Province. To give a sense of levels of toxicity, one scientist involved in the Guangdong incident, Professor Wu Feng of the Beijing Institute of Technology explained that one “20-gram cell phone battery can pollute three standard swimming pools of water, and if abandoned on land, it can pollute one square kilometer for 50 years.”
Click to expand...
I agree. The article specifically mentions "disposal". What does this mean?

It's pretty negative and leads us to think people will discard batteries in fields or the bulk will end up in landfill. That's terrible and shouldn't happen.

We need to be thinking about "disposal" more like "recycling", rather than discard, burn or bury.

Manufacturers are now publishing LCAs (Life cycle assessments) where considerations are made for lifecycle inventory all the way to end-of-life.

Considerations are made at design stage for material production and refining, manufacturing, logistics, use phase and end-of-life. Some manufacturers are thinking about the end-of-life even before a vehicle has been made and selecting materials that are easier to recycle even before they hit the production line.

This is the future and I think we should make our choices based on manufacturers that operate this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kave
Car choices
Replies
3
Views
756
kave
kave
Skylark2.0
Electric car charging points
Replies
7
Views
2K
GrannyJen
GrannyJen
Ocean Spirit
Car Forum Enthusiasts - not for every car it seems.
Replies
11
Views
1K
Ocean Spirit
Ocean Spirit
D
Charging an electric car
Replies
7
Views
2K
Bobby D
Bobby D
David Eccles
Electric roofs
Replies
0
Views
583
David Eccles
David Eccles

Useful links

VW California Club

  • Comfort Insurance
  • VIP Membership
  • Hire a Vw California
  • CampervanBits Accessories
  • Conquest

About us

The VW California Club is the worlds largest resource for all owners and enthusiasts of VW California campervans.

Our Partners

Our Websites

Back
Top