BEVs are a dead end. It's an idea older than internal combustion and is already obsolete. The world needs to shift focus to concepts like e-fuels or hydrogen cars.
E-fuel? So like what? Electricity...
It's fuel made using electricity as the energy source.
The problem with fuels made from electricity is that pesky thing called thermodynamics. If an efuel was developed that was more efficient than electricity then we'd be able to use it to produce more electricity than we put in.
Lots of fuels (like petrol) are a lot more energy dense than out best batteries. If we can synthesize fuels like that just using electricity as an energy source (that can be generated from renewables) then you have a carbon free dense store of energy that can be used to power a vehicle for a long distance without refueling.
The problem with these (fuel cells etc) is that the conversation rate is inefficient, wasting a lot of energy. As we are not using 100% renewable energy this means carbon is being released still.
If we had an entirely renewable energy grid (with oversupply when sunny/windy etc) then those energy losses would not matter.
You avoid the giant, expensive battery though. People are obsessed with efficiency in a self-defeating way.
People are obsessed with efficiency because it's the only metric that matters. We have a finite amount of resources on this planet and efficiency is the only way we can make it last. If you aren't a 'save the planet' type of person then efficiency still matters because it's directly correlated with cost.
Better ban solar panels cause they're only 15-20% efficient. /s
You are comparing different efficiencies. Solar panels are 15% to 20% efficient at converting light into energy. As far as I'm aware every Efuel being developed (and every hydrocarbon fuel for that matter) has a 0% efficiency at converting light into energy but if I am mistaken please do correct me.
In a completely technical sense the hydrocarbon fuel was at one time produced from light energy (dead plants) but that's taking your point and being pedantic since the "efficiency" of the conversation is probably astronomically low when you account for the loses sustained by whatever lifeform died and became said hydrocarbons.
E-fuels are made from solar power. It is not anywhere near 0%. Also, clearly efficiency is not "the only metric that matters."
No they are made from electricity, and that electricity is made by solar panels (sometimes).
Any form of conversion means losing energy.
BEVs require conversion steps too. Not to mention the cost and energy needed to build them in the first place. They are nearly as efficient as their advocates think.
An EV's pollution is recovered after 25 000km compared to an ICE.
This is including the battery and being completely powered by coal power plants.
The conversion steps for any EV is much less then any other form of fuel, because all those fuels usually convert to electricity somewhere in the line.
You just really like bringing up debunked arguments, do you?
It's too bad we're not comparing BEVs to conventional ICE cars. The alternatives are even greener and don't have a paypack period.
Fuel cell cars literally are EVs. People like you are just regurgitating a lot of BEV propaganda. These arguments only work when the alternative is a conventional ICE car running on pure fossil fuels. Your understanding of transportation technology is basically trapped in the early 2000s. You think you know something, but in reality you're 20 years out of date.
Or just move to building proper public transport like Europe did.
Europe is a huge continent. What do you mean, exactly?
The UK is in Europe, and in many cities here the public transport options are terrible, with driving being the only safe option, as cycling is very dangerous on our roads.
There are also huge parts of France, Italy, and Germany where public transport is poor, expensive, or infrequent.
I can charge my EV in the garage and not have to stand at a gas station in -30. Why on Earth would I want a less convenient hydrogen or other fuel car?
Because not everyone has a garage, and you still have to use the equivalent of gas stations if you're travelling long distances.
In reality, BEVs pre-date ICE cars. They were abandoned because they were found to be less practical. The vast majority of people actually want gas stations and not the reverse.
We're still in the early adoption stage. They were less practical because batteries were absolute trash 100 years ago. The vast majority of people want a car that will fill fast and go far. They don't care how it happens.
We are also in the early adoption phase of other technologies. They will be far cheaper and more practical than what they are now. At some point, we have cars that are exactly as practical and cheap as conventional cars, only zero emissions. That is likely the end of the BEV.
Why do you think BEV is going away? Toyota is predicting they'll have 1200km range and charge in 10 minutes by 2028. Even now the average city dweller can charge enough on a small service to make their trip to work and back. There is no upside to changing to something else.
They're unsustainable, not to mention expensive and difficult for society to adopt. Toyota just say things while not actually being interested in them.
The marketing that they are "acceptable" for most people is not good enough. Eventually, there will be zero emissions cars that are just as practical as existing ICE cars and just as cheap. Basically no one will want BEVs once that happens.
They're not unsustainable. Lithium is infinitely recyclable. Not to mention batteries are lasting way longer than expected. I've been in Tesla cabs with almost a million kilometers.
But it isn't recycled, especially at the 100% level that would be required. And you still need to dig out vast amount amounts of virgin material in the first place. Meanwhile, e-fuels and hydrogen have no such problem to begin with. This is basically an excuse to ignore the real-world problems of batteries.
If you don't have a garage you don't need a car
If only...
I'm going to say that less than 30% of houses here in the UK have a garage/carport etc (either individual or shared).
Most of the individual garages will be sized to fit an old mini, not a modern car (even a small one)
Yeah, quit using the efficient stuff, we need something similarly inefficient as gas powered cars.
Batteries are unsustainable and have massive resource requirements. It's basically an obsession with "efficiency" while actually being extremely wasteful.
You say that while promoting the idea of more inefficient energy transfer systems. Electric motors operate above 90%, traditional motors around 25-30%. Trying to mitigate that with wasting more energy by creating an artificial fuel is even more wasteful.
Burning stuff is unsustainable, using batteries, that are recyclable is not.
Solar panels are only 15-20% efficient. No one is going around saying we need to ban solar panels.
Fuels made from solar power are the opposite of unsustainable. They are the most sustainable ideas possible. It is basically artificial photosynthesis.
We don't make fuels from solar power.
Unless you mean hydrogen, which by itself is already 30-40% less efficient then just using the electricity directly in a battery.
And that is without counting all the hydrogen that just escapes through any form of containment we try to keep it in.
Hydrogen is a fuel. E-fuels are hydrogen plus CO₂ and converted into synthetic hydrocarbons.
You are blatantly ignoring the part where solar power is incredibly inefficient to begin with, and we don't care. It's still cheap energy.
You're confusing the efficency of solar panels with the efficiency of burning hydrocarbon based fuel (perhaps intentionally?). Yes, solar panels convert about 20-30% (they're getting better with time) of the energy provided by mankind's closest and most beloved fission reactor into energy we can use, the rest being reflected or turned into heat, but the source (that giant ball of fission) is infinite and non-detremental to the environment to keep running. Hydrocarbon production not only requires this original source but once calculated would provided you end delivery efficency levels that are dramatically lower (likely less than 1%), Natural hydrocarbons are limited in supply, and the whole chain is significantly more toxic for the planet when you calculate in byproducts produced during production or consumption. It's legitimately not even close and if you truly believe hydrocarbons are even remotely viable you've misinterpreted one of the data points somewhere in your calculation.
Except you've just proved my point: Solar is basically infinite energy. So why obsess over efficiency? If you have something made from solar power, it is not a big deal.
I'm not obsessed with efficency, but it is a useful metric to consider when thinking about the overall picture. Additionally I've not made your point. Solar still requires implementation, land use, and is finite in access to humanity despite the source being infinite. Producing hydrogen fuel with this consideration would automatically increase the required solar capacity by 20-40% based on current hydrogen production processes. In addition there are byproducts and downsides from creating traditional hydrocarbon based fuels in a renewable manner.
Useful in isolation, but that is not what is happening here. People want to maximize the efficiency of a resource that is basically infinite in nature, while being fine with it destroying the rest of the environment in the process. It doesn't take much thought to realize that deprioritizing efficiency in favor of other factors is a much better compromise.
And this is even more stark when you realize that we are not merely prioritizing efficiency; we effectively have a cult of efficiency. One that maximizes the perception of efficiency even at the cost of actual efficiency. BEVs are still insanely inefficient compared to ideas like mass transit or walkable neighborhoods. A grid that runs entirely on renewable energy needs vast amounts of energy storage, which can't be solved by batteries without massive amounts of waste. A much smarter balance of solutions will actually reduce waste and improve efficiency. However, that imply that BEVs are a niche idea and aren't really needed in the grand scheme of things.
Absolutely agree with you when it comes to all of that, but I'm just saying after spending a pretty significant amount of time reading up on current 'renewable' hydrocarbon production it's not what it's cracked up to be. We should almost assuredly be investing in transport networks that are vastly more efficient and environmentally friendly than our current networks (light rail, bus networks, electric bikes, etc, etc), but it's a far easier argument to talk someone into an BEV vehicle vs a ICE one than it is to get them to take the bus or petition their local council for better community transit, and like it or not new vehicles will continue to be made. Not sure what that says for us as a species, headed high speed towards self and environmental destruction, but at least BEVs seem to help lift the metaphorical foot off the accelerator. I hope we eventually get to a point where current transport networks look as outdated as horse and carriage to our descendants.
Talking someone into a BEV is just laziness, and more greenwashing than being a serious solution. It's not even easier, as you now need a garage and tolerance for long recharge times and less range. The actual easiest idea would be to create a drop-in replacement for ICE cars. E-fuels are an option. Hydrogen cars are similarly straightforward as a possibility.
BEVs are at best a transitional idea. All it seems to be good for is changing people's minds on green transportation. But it won't get us to the promise land. There are too many problems, and the resource requirements mean they create huge new problems of their own. We need to push for whatever that can best get rid of fossil fuel cars, which will have to be something else.
Where is the comparison to the solar panel? I'm comparing methods of propelling, you are comparing solar panels and?
If you can use the energy more efficiently and choose not to it's not sustainable (or at least not very smart)
Because it is solar power ultimately powering it all. If you don't care about the efficiency of that step, you don't really care about all of the later steps. It is still green energy and still cheap.
The problem with BEVs is that while it is efficient in one respect, it is insanely wasteful in others. As a result, it is an unsustainable idea and functionally just greenwashing.
So it's the same if you have to build 5 times as many solar panels to do the same thing? It's just not.
Now we're in the "pro-BEV bullshit" zone. Batteries won't magically solve all transportation needs, nor solve the energy storage requirements of the grid. Alternatives still have to exist anyways, and the total lifecycle efficiency of BEVs isn't that special. In a lot of cases, avoiding excessive use of batteries will save you energy. So pursuing alternatives will not need radically more solar panels.
Where did I say batteries were perfect?
If you can admit that, you can admit there can be superior options to BEVs.
Admit what? That they aren't perfect? Yeah sure, nothing is. But where is the better option?
E-fuels or hydrogen made from green energy. With the latter you won't even give up on the future being EVs. They are the actually sustainable forms of transportation that everyone can accept.
BEVs are a dead end. It's an idea older than internal combustion and is already obsolete. The world needs to shift focus to concepts like e-fuels or hydrogen cars.
E-fuel? So like what? Electricity...
It's fuel made using electricity as the energy source.
The problem with fuels made from electricity is that pesky thing called thermodynamics. If an efuel was developed that was more efficient than electricity then we'd be able to use it to produce more electricity than we put in.
Lots of fuels (like petrol) are a lot more energy dense than out best batteries. If we can synthesize fuels like that just using electricity as an energy source (that can be generated from renewables) then you have a carbon free dense store of energy that can be used to power a vehicle for a long distance without refueling.
The problem with these (fuel cells etc) is that the conversation rate is inefficient, wasting a lot of energy. As we are not using 100% renewable energy this means carbon is being released still.
If we had an entirely renewable energy grid (with oversupply when sunny/windy etc) then those energy losses would not matter.
You avoid the giant, expensive battery though. People are obsessed with efficiency in a self-defeating way.
People are obsessed with efficiency because it's the only metric that matters. We have a finite amount of resources on this planet and efficiency is the only way we can make it last. If you aren't a 'save the planet' type of person then efficiency still matters because it's directly correlated with cost.
Better ban solar panels cause they're only 15-20% efficient. /s
You are comparing different efficiencies. Solar panels are 15% to 20% efficient at converting light into energy. As far as I'm aware every Efuel being developed (and every hydrocarbon fuel for that matter) has a 0% efficiency at converting light into energy but if I am mistaken please do correct me.
In a completely technical sense the hydrocarbon fuel was at one time produced from light energy (dead plants) but that's taking your point and being pedantic since the "efficiency" of the conversation is probably astronomically low when you account for the loses sustained by whatever lifeform died and became said hydrocarbons.
E-fuels are made from solar power. It is not anywhere near 0%. Also, clearly efficiency is not "the only metric that matters."
No they are made from electricity, and that electricity is made by solar panels (sometimes).
Any form of conversion means losing energy.
BEVs require conversion steps too. Not to mention the cost and energy needed to build them in the first place. They are nearly as efficient as their advocates think.
An EV's pollution is recovered after 25 000km compared to an ICE.
This is including the battery and being completely powered by coal power plants.
The conversion steps for any EV is much less then any other form of fuel, because all those fuels usually convert to electricity somewhere in the line.
You just really like bringing up debunked arguments, do you?
It's too bad we're not comparing BEVs to conventional ICE cars. The alternatives are even greener and don't have a paypack period.
Fuel cell cars literally are EVs. People like you are just regurgitating a lot of BEV propaganda. These arguments only work when the alternative is a conventional ICE car running on pure fossil fuels. Your understanding of transportation technology is basically trapped in the early 2000s. You think you know something, but in reality you're 20 years out of date.
Or just move to building proper public transport like Europe did.
Europe is a huge continent. What do you mean, exactly?
The UK is in Europe, and in many cities here the public transport options are terrible, with driving being the only safe option, as cycling is very dangerous on our roads.
There are also huge parts of France, Italy, and Germany where public transport is poor, expensive, or infrequent.
I can charge my EV in the garage and not have to stand at a gas station in -30. Why on Earth would I want a less convenient hydrogen or other fuel car?
Because not everyone has a garage, and you still have to use the equivalent of gas stations if you're travelling long distances.
In reality, BEVs pre-date ICE cars. They were abandoned because they were found to be less practical. The vast majority of people actually want gas stations and not the reverse.
We're still in the early adoption stage. They were less practical because batteries were absolute trash 100 years ago. The vast majority of people want a car that will fill fast and go far. They don't care how it happens.
We are also in the early adoption phase of other technologies. They will be far cheaper and more practical than what they are now. At some point, we have cars that are exactly as practical and cheap as conventional cars, only zero emissions. That is likely the end of the BEV.
Why do you think BEV is going away? Toyota is predicting they'll have 1200km range and charge in 10 minutes by 2028. Even now the average city dweller can charge enough on a small service to make their trip to work and back. There is no upside to changing to something else.
They're unsustainable, not to mention expensive and difficult for society to adopt. Toyota just say things while not actually being interested in them.
The marketing that they are "acceptable" for most people is not good enough. Eventually, there will be zero emissions cars that are just as practical as existing ICE cars and just as cheap. Basically no one will want BEVs once that happens.
They're not unsustainable. Lithium is infinitely recyclable. Not to mention batteries are lasting way longer than expected. I've been in Tesla cabs with almost a million kilometers.
But it isn't recycled, especially at the 100% level that would be required. And you still need to dig out vast amount amounts of virgin material in the first place. Meanwhile, e-fuels and hydrogen have no such problem to begin with. This is basically an excuse to ignore the real-world problems of batteries.
If you don't have a garage you don't need a car
If only...
I'm going to say that less than 30% of houses here in the UK have a garage/carport etc (either individual or shared).
Most of the individual garages will be sized to fit an old mini, not a modern car (even a small one)
Yeah, quit using the efficient stuff, we need something similarly inefficient as gas powered cars.
Batteries are unsustainable and have massive resource requirements. It's basically an obsession with "efficiency" while actually being extremely wasteful.
You say that while promoting the idea of more inefficient energy transfer systems. Electric motors operate above 90%, traditional motors around 25-30%. Trying to mitigate that with wasting more energy by creating an artificial fuel is even more wasteful.
Burning stuff is unsustainable, using batteries, that are recyclable is not.
Solar panels are only 15-20% efficient. No one is going around saying we need to ban solar panels.
Fuels made from solar power are the opposite of unsustainable. They are the most sustainable ideas possible. It is basically artificial photosynthesis.
We don't make fuels from solar power.
Unless you mean hydrogen, which by itself is already 30-40% less efficient then just using the electricity directly in a battery.
And that is without counting all the hydrogen that just escapes through any form of containment we try to keep it in.
Hydrogen is a fuel. E-fuels are hydrogen plus CO₂ and converted into synthetic hydrocarbons.
You are blatantly ignoring the part where solar power is incredibly inefficient to begin with, and we don't care. It's still cheap energy.
You're confusing the efficency of solar panels with the efficiency of burning hydrocarbon based fuel (perhaps intentionally?). Yes, solar panels convert about 20-30% (they're getting better with time) of the energy provided by mankind's closest and most beloved fission reactor into energy we can use, the rest being reflected or turned into heat, but the source (that giant ball of fission) is infinite and non-detremental to the environment to keep running. Hydrocarbon production not only requires this original source but once calculated would provided you end delivery efficency levels that are dramatically lower (likely less than 1%), Natural hydrocarbons are limited in supply, and the whole chain is significantly more toxic for the planet when you calculate in byproducts produced during production or consumption. It's legitimately not even close and if you truly believe hydrocarbons are even remotely viable you've misinterpreted one of the data points somewhere in your calculation.
Except you've just proved my point: Solar is basically infinite energy. So why obsess over efficiency? If you have something made from solar power, it is not a big deal.
I'm not obsessed with efficency, but it is a useful metric to consider when thinking about the overall picture. Additionally I've not made your point. Solar still requires implementation, land use, and is finite in access to humanity despite the source being infinite. Producing hydrogen fuel with this consideration would automatically increase the required solar capacity by 20-40% based on current hydrogen production processes. In addition there are byproducts and downsides from creating traditional hydrocarbon based fuels in a renewable manner.
Useful in isolation, but that is not what is happening here. People want to maximize the efficiency of a resource that is basically infinite in nature, while being fine with it destroying the rest of the environment in the process. It doesn't take much thought to realize that deprioritizing efficiency in favor of other factors is a much better compromise.
And this is even more stark when you realize that we are not merely prioritizing efficiency; we effectively have a cult of efficiency. One that maximizes the perception of efficiency even at the cost of actual efficiency. BEVs are still insanely inefficient compared to ideas like mass transit or walkable neighborhoods. A grid that runs entirely on renewable energy needs vast amounts of energy storage, which can't be solved by batteries without massive amounts of waste. A much smarter balance of solutions will actually reduce waste and improve efficiency. However, that imply that BEVs are a niche idea and aren't really needed in the grand scheme of things.
Absolutely agree with you when it comes to all of that, but I'm just saying after spending a pretty significant amount of time reading up on current 'renewable' hydrocarbon production it's not what it's cracked up to be. We should almost assuredly be investing in transport networks that are vastly more efficient and environmentally friendly than our current networks (light rail, bus networks, electric bikes, etc, etc), but it's a far easier argument to talk someone into an BEV vehicle vs a ICE one than it is to get them to take the bus or petition their local council for better community transit, and like it or not new vehicles will continue to be made. Not sure what that says for us as a species, headed high speed towards self and environmental destruction, but at least BEVs seem to help lift the metaphorical foot off the accelerator. I hope we eventually get to a point where current transport networks look as outdated as horse and carriage to our descendants.
Talking someone into a BEV is just laziness, and more greenwashing than being a serious solution. It's not even easier, as you now need a garage and tolerance for long recharge times and less range. The actual easiest idea would be to create a drop-in replacement for ICE cars. E-fuels are an option. Hydrogen cars are similarly straightforward as a possibility.
BEVs are at best a transitional idea. All it seems to be good for is changing people's minds on green transportation. But it won't get us to the promise land. There are too many problems, and the resource requirements mean they create huge new problems of their own. We need to push for whatever that can best get rid of fossil fuel cars, which will have to be something else.
Where is the comparison to the solar panel? I'm comparing methods of propelling, you are comparing solar panels and?
If you can use the energy more efficiently and choose not to it's not sustainable (or at least not very smart)
Because it is solar power ultimately powering it all. If you don't care about the efficiency of that step, you don't really care about all of the later steps. It is still green energy and still cheap.
The problem with BEVs is that while it is efficient in one respect, it is insanely wasteful in others. As a result, it is an unsustainable idea and functionally just greenwashing.
So it's the same if you have to build 5 times as many solar panels to do the same thing? It's just not.
Now we're in the "pro-BEV bullshit" zone. Batteries won't magically solve all transportation needs, nor solve the energy storage requirements of the grid. Alternatives still have to exist anyways, and the total lifecycle efficiency of BEVs isn't that special. In a lot of cases, avoiding excessive use of batteries will save you energy. So pursuing alternatives will not need radically more solar panels.
Where did I say batteries were perfect?
If you can admit that, you can admit there can be superior options to BEVs.
Admit what? That they aren't perfect? Yeah sure, nothing is. But where is the better option?
E-fuels or hydrogen made from green energy. With the latter you won't even give up on the future being EVs. They are the actually sustainable forms of transportation that everyone can accept.
I'm going to say that if you can charge at home, then electric cars are awesome, otherwise a HFC style car might be better.
Both are going to require significant infrastructure build out, but electric chargers are much easier to install.