Absurdly heavy means when comparing a Volvo electric car to an identical production Volvo model with the only difference being the ICE engine; the electric version is 300kg heavier. In practical terms that's the equivalent additional weight of five passengers(at 60kg each) when it is empty. It's not about the lightest or heaviest EV that can be made. It's a like for like comparison of the EV weight versus an identical one featuring ICE.
When the largest vehicle manufacturer on the planet ( and by some considerable way it has to be said) won't nail its colours to the EV mast, one has to ask why.
My background: my day job *is* as an electronic engineer (mostly in low power digital electronics, but I've done some stuff in medium power automotive electronics on occasion.) My tuppence: EVs are 1) not (yet) economical sensible options for end users in the UK, 2) they are not (yet) as green as they look, and 3) they are nothing like as cheap to run as they appear, either. 4) I also have grave misgivings about grid infrastructure, but perhaps not quite for the reasons that are usually cited, and 5) I think that questions around the geopolitics of supply security of battery and electric motor metal ores remain troublingly unanswered. In summary, I think we're better off (for now) with petrol hybrids than with full EVs, but I hope that will be a short term state of affairs while these other issues are being ironed out. Since this comment will be long enough already, I'll briefly outline my reasoning on each of those points, and later elaborate (with calculations if you wish) to justify those conclusions by way of follow up replies if you or anyone else is interested. First I should say that, in 2021, for the first and (quite possibly) only time in my life, I bought a car from new. I thought long and hard about whether to go hybrid or full EV (since I ruled out conventional ICE on principle and, anyway, was not all that much cheaper). The cars in contention were the Toyota Corolla 2.0 litre hybrid versus the VW ID3 Pro S which had comparable internal volume and driving performance. On balance, I punted for the hybrid. Here's why, more or less corresponding with the numbering above: 1) the EV was at least £8k more expensive. At the then-current prices of electricity and petrol (this was before the energy crisis), the EV was about 5p/mi cheaper to run, but the capital difference meant that break even was approximately 160,000 miles. Worse, I anticipated that electricity prices would increase faster than petrol prices would, at least for the foreseeable future. That was largely out of cynicism of UK government, but it also was based in the economics of petrol vs electricity production as priced at the pump (or home). 2) I was not at the time aware that the carbon footprint of a brand new EV was greater than that of a petrol hybrid, but I was not surprised to read that nor to read that the EV will eventually beat the hybrid with carbon output over time. Mainly, my reasoning here was that (at the time) gas turbine made for up to 50% of UK generation capacity, so up to half of the electricity used by an EV came from carbon anyway. I calculated that, in some countries like Germany and Poland, the carbon footprint of the electricity was only just better than the hybrid anyway because of their reliance on coal. But that says more about those countries than it does EVs. 3) EV tariffs, at the time, gave you about 5p/kWh at night, but daytime unit prices were about 30% extra. EV tariffs don't represent the true cost per mile, so I use the then-current any-time pricing (hence point 1). More importantly, I don't think these tariffs are going to endure indefinitely because of the economics and dynamics of generation and grid operation. It's convenient for now, even when they're selling energy for less than wholesale, but it isn't going to stay that way when EV market share is high enough. 4) NG-ESO have, in the past, claimed that there is adequate generation capacity because of the differences in diurnal demand. True, but solar is not available at night so there are fewer renewables to draw upon. The main problem, though, is it doesn't take account of "last mile" electricity infrastructure. You can add extra capacity to the HV side of a transformer, and you can increase the transformers capacity, but what limits charging capacity is the wire in the ground. (I have the applicable figures for my neighbourhood if you want them.) 5) So far as I have been able to glean, worldwide production of lithium, cobalt, copper, neodymium, praseodymium etc is nothing like enough sufficient to supply the expected demands for EVs if there is any chance at hitting the 2035 deadline. More than that, a lot of the known supply lies in potentially hostile territory, and largely out of the same cynicism I had for domestic generation and distribution capacity, I am sceptical that production can and will be scaled up sufficiently. Meanwhile, we need all of those ores for other applications other than just EV production (especially copper and lithium). You touched on this in your video, but only fleetingly and you didn't inquire into the viability of those sources. Nothing much has happened (yet) to change my mind. If anything, the same argumentation seems to lean slightly more heavily toward hybrids, but there's not much in it. I think we'd do better to distribute what access to such ores we have over more cars that meet modern emissions standards than try to go all out and do EV only. Against all this, I'm looking at this from the point of a consumer who needs a car to get by, so the difference between a car tyre and a bike tyre is not apposite because I can't cycle a 50 mile round trip. There is also a huge assumption that EVs of today will reflect the EVs of 10 years' time. Rare earth permanent magnets for motors and lithium for batteries are not the only way of doing those things, so perhaps 5) might be completely obviated by new ways of doing things. (For now), that's JMO. To address some of the points in your video: 6:44 Not sure your claim about lithium stacks up. A quick google produces the claim that »The Nature Conservancy report estimates “Nevada alone has the potential to supply the world with lithium for 85 years at 2021 demand levels.”«, which is not quite forever, and 2021 levels is a fraction of the demand required to satisfy the 2035 deadline. It also doesn't say much about how accessible these deposits are. There's no real question that there's the prospect of increasing capacity, including recycling materials in spent batteries etc. The question is whether these sources can and will be brought on line in time. I don't think you're engaging with the spirit of Atkinson's point here. 12:15 I do agree, though, Atkinson's analysis of battery longevity is unwarranted as of yet. You mentioned LiFePO₄ batteries, these are good for a bunch of other reasons. You mention progress; eg there are other chemistries like LiSOCl₂ (lithium thionyl chloride) which are completely inappropriate for EVs, but it demonstrates that there are horses for courses. 13:43 Blue hydrogen is usually manufactured by steam reformation of methane, which need not be a fossil fuel. Methane is a common byproduct of a lot of processes. Green hydrogen, ie by electrolysis of water, is an interestingly complex subject. There are some interesting things going on here (eg Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolysis), but it's a fairly immature field. I may be doing some stuff at $dayjob in an adjacent field later this year. 14:19 Why not make hydrogen? Why not indeed! (But admitting to mining bitcoin is probably not great if you want to make the case for EVs on environmental grounds.) Hydrogen might have a future as an energy storage medium but I agree, it doesn't seem very likely for cars. Either you use a fuel cell which has its own esoteric materials demands. Or you can adapt a conventional ICE to burn hydrogen, but that's a crappy option because you get less power for a given displacement and you also get some nasty NOx pollution, more even than from diesel. 18:31 I do think Lawrence Dunn has a point: most people aren't in a position to afford the kind of capital to provision a solar/storage system of the capacity required to do what you say at this point. A little empathy would go a long way, particularly in advocacy for policy that would have to be workable for almost everyone. 26:25 Thermal efficiency of (the ironically named) Atkinson cycle ICE is about 40%. More conventional Otto cycle engines are less thermally efficient but produce more torque for a given displacement. I gather EVs are in the order of 70-85% in thermal efficiency. A lot better, to be sure, but let's not pretend that the difference between ICE and EVs is anything like as great as you suggest. Overall, I think you're being a little hard on Rowan Atkinson. Reasonable minds may differ.
@@shou635 Well, nope, because if ethics is remotely a consideration when choosing between EV or hybrid (or conventional), the last company I'd buy from is any connected to Elon Musk. Besides, even the 3 is far too expensive for what it is. There is no room for Tesla fanbois in this discussion. More to the point, nothing you said has anything to do with what I wrote in the comment to which you replied.
I can't believe that you used science and common sense to battle emotions. The method of pseudo intellectuals, like this narrator, is to focus on one tiny piece of a problem, and analysing it to death. While they happily ignores 99% of the issues. This is the only way they can feel smart and not gets lambasted by real intellectuals.
@@Deontjie Idk. People tend to rely on intuition more than they should, especially when they don't realise their reasoning is more intuition than analytical. Most people (including myself) also suck at intuitive reasoning about large numbers (eg tax rates, income and wealth inequality), probability (classic example being the Monty Hall problem) and geometric series. And time, a lot of people really suck at reasoning about time, which is why I'm writing this comment rather than doing the work I should be doing! I find it useful to try plugging in a few sourced numbers to a proposition to see whether what seems reasonable actually is. Many people are prepared, at least in principle, to change their minds when they see that sort of analysis, unless they are in some way invested in the proposition being true. I had hoped that DrivingDeveloper might engage on that basis, but perhaps he's too invested in the idea that EVs are the Only Solution. Or maybe my comment was just too long.
Your argument is not correct, I am not saying I support Rowan's comments fully. But as I am part of the great car manufacturing earth killing dynasty, working for a major manufacture. The concept of the fully EV car unit is flawed and the major manufacturers do not see the investment in lithium processing as viable nor passing on the costs to their customers being practical. Toyota are right not to declare EV as their primary manufacturing objective. I doubt many of the major car producers would and I can't comment on the manufacture I work for as to their objectives. As for the infrastructure to support EV's, this is not the manufactures concern.
Actually no. Toyota just announced a major commitment to EV production. th-cam.com/video/Xw6VrQzEJx4/w-d-xo.html You really need keep up with the rapidly changing EV space before you choose your references. However, Toyota is famously full of sh!t. They have historically not made good on bold claims (cough, solid state batteries by 2020, cough). So referencing them is not a strong argument. Maybe ‘working for a major auto manufacturer’ finds you too much in a misinformed echo chamber.
@@Dinulik762 Well, when you consider that an electric car as a carbon footprint 80% higher than a combustion vehicle, at the moment their production is complete (i.e., the moment they leave factory) and when you know that electric vehicles are charged with electricity that derives from coal plants, well.. you must admit that it's really all just propaganda
I don't get the anti eV thing... It dosnt have a political edge or green motivation... They are just interesting, like many many many other products. Dosnt mean you don't like petrol cars anymore.
It seems driven by certain British 'news' outlets. They are interesting but talking with my distant Norwegian relatives for whom electrified transport is now very ordinary, it's somewhat boring and mundane (for them!) as well..! They're much more interested in what colour the car is than what form of propulsion it has...
@@DivingDeveloper all I can think of is my great grandad, probably moaning on about pesky internal combustion engines, when steam is soo much better... I mean where are they going to build all the petrol stations haha
Rowan atkinson just makes some god points. He basically says look at more options then just pure EV and more importantly keep your gas car a little longer. But al you do in this video is trying do discredit him in al kinds of ways. Sorry but this is a very poor video
Hello Thomas, I'm glad you liked the video? I don't think you watched it since you missed the point (and yet, haven't pointed out anything in my video that you believe is incorrect). If you prefer your content written rather than in a reaction here's the correction in The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
Wiki shows that lithium reserves are limited so no point pretending they are. Most lithium is not viable for extraction. In 2022 australia mined 1 percent of its total reserves and hardly anyone has an ev at the moment
Yeah there’s just 230 billion tonnes of lithium in seawater… Of course it’s finite! There are no infinite resources on Earth (or anywhere in the universe for that matter…). For all practical purposes there is sufficient lithium. As for nobody having an EV - the Model Y is the current top selling car. EV adoption is increasing rapidly. You might be seeing electric vehicles and not recognising them? They look like normal cars for the most part.
@@DivingDeveloper May I suggest that you read up on the physics and chemistry of lithium extraction. It's not so straight forward because Group I metals are generally soluble. Even if there were such volumes of lithium available, not all of it - perhaps very little of it - is available for commercially viable extraction, especially if it is diffusely distributed.
It is lithium refinement that is the bottleneck for larger mass production of electric vehicles, not extraction. The batteries need to be refined to a very high degree to minimise degradation from use. Elon Musk for has pushed for entrepreneurs to go into lithium refining as those already doing so are not scaling fast enough, to the point that Tesla is now in construction of a battery refinery in Texas to come online in a couple years.
@@Jogeta5 Okay yes, granted, I was lumping in refinement with extraction. It's not hard to run a sample through a mass-spec and prove lithium is present. It is another thing altogether to extract and separate Li+ from Na+ (and K+) in volume. It's a long, tedious and expensive operation. There is a lot of lithium in sea brine (unsurprisingly, because most salts of Group 1 elements, aka alkali metals such as those listed above, are soluble), but it is so diffuse in seawater it is not commercially feasible to extract. To give you some idea, Na+ content of seawater is typically a bit less than 500mmol/L. I haven't been able to find reliable estimates for Li+ in unreduced brine, probably because it varies so much as to where you test. But seems to be in the order of nmol/L or less, ie eight or nine orders of magnitude less, on average.
@@DivingDeveloper Yes, there is plenty of lithium in seawater, but it's not feasible to extract it. From memory, there's about 500mmol/L of sodium in seawater versus an average of < 1nmol/L of lithium (1 mmol = 1,000,000 nmol). That's 8 or 9 orders of magnitude of difference. For all practical purposes, there may as well be no lithium in the sea at all - given the current state of the art, anyway.
I am in diametric disagreement with much of what you say, I am however disinclined to dispute this with you because the whole EV -v- fossil fuel cars debate is, in reality, a complete and utter red herring, in that while EVs may or may not necessarily reduce 1st World climate damaging emissions, to a very small degree BTW, they will do absolutely nothing whatsoever to mitigate overall Global Warming! Why??? Simple... In 1920, world population was close to 2bn and global CO2 emissions was around 3.5bn (metric) tonnes per annum. A century later, world population has doubled every 50 years and increased fourfold, and global CO2 emissions: TENFOLD! Unless we can halt, and preferably reverse, exponential, global population expansion, greenhouse-gases' emissions will also continue to increase exponentially!
Hello Robin, Your first comment ended up getting flagged for spam. I’m not sure why, but I’ve published it manually. That’s an interesting viewpoint - it’s true that CO2 has increased as population has increased but is this merely correlation or causation as you suggest. “Utter red herring” notwithstanding - and EVs will absolutely reduce carbon (it’s not a debate - the science is clear) - the whole, “carbon footprint” messaging is actually fossil fuel industry marketing. It comes as the fossil fuel industry needed a way to redirect focus and attention away from themselves, so they invented the concept of a “carbon footprint” and pushed attention to the individual, and away from their very, dirty dirty businesses.
2:00 .. so right off the bat, the virality of his opinion is infectious and hilarious. There's no way around scarcity and entropy, or that non passenger-vehicle 28 degree angle of approach that is just godly. Maybe he should've also mentioned how he once rescued someone out of a car crash, but that wouldn't have happened if it was a Tesla fireball instead. I think it's unnecessary to fan fuel into fire and it's difficult to approach this from any angle, but that someone from the car crash was hoarding 6% of the world's aluminum in the middle of the desert! Now I wonder where all the Tesla fireball rare earth metals are being hoarded at the moment.. 🤔
Electric vehicles were around many decades ago but didn't make any lasting impact then. So, why NOW? Except for profits from something that many might think of as "new" - while fossil fuel is needed to power up the charging points to see them on their limited way despite the prevailing climate change obsession!
“EVs had been outselling gas cars in America for a number of years, the 1899 US census recorded a total automobile production of 1,575 electric vehicles, 1,681 steam-powered vehicles and only 936 gas burning cars. In 1897, the Pope Manufacturing Company’s Columbia Motor Carriage was the best selling vehicle in the US, and yes, it was powered by electricity. But as time went on, gas cars caught up to and overtook EVs.” - TomTom Why now? Because we know how much damage fossil fuel transportation is doing to the environment. Even an EV charged from fossil fuel is cleaner. As explained in the video that I’m not sure you watched before you went to your keyboard to bang out an angry looking comment!
In Countries like New Zealand it would be pointless to promote selling more E.V's, but they do it anyway. The problem is there are limits to power generation and the national grid is already at peak capacity. Also when you add a lot of weight to an E.V. by towing a load the range is severely affected, this is where fuel powered vehicles have the advantage. Probably why E.V. utes have not been popular in NZ, a diesel ute outperforms them in almost every test.
(UK) NG-ESO have pointed out that there is adequate grid capacity because the time when EVs typically charge is overnight when diurnal load is least. That said, this logic doesn't work for LV distribution, which is inadequate in most places if most of the street have EVs. It can be done, but only by DNO-controlled sequencing of chargers in each household based on feedback from sensors at the transformer. At least NZ has plenty of hydro. Huntley's going to be a problem, though.
You are incorrect. The state electricity board has stated that there is no generation issue with the whole 4 Million car fleet being EVs. I live in Auckland NZ. The retail sector are wanting to put in network controllable home chargers so that they can reduce the load on the network if required - just like they do with electric hot water cylinders. BTW 4Million cars doing 20,000km / year (average is 15,000) at an efficiency of 5km/kwh (tesla model 3 is 7km) is 16 TwH per year. Currently the whole country uses 41 Twh - so an increase of about 30%. For the nightly loading. If every ev plugged in every night to top up the average usage of 54km or 11Kwh, over the 10 hour of night time (9pm to 7am) the extra load would be approx 1kw * 4,000,000 or 4Gw of extra generation needed. We currently peak at 6.5Gw of generation, so some more wind would be required - but that is already been built now. If anything the current usage hasn't been growing over time as people switch to Led lights and heat pumps. Also around 85-90% of our current generation is renewable. Hydro, wind, solar. Mostly hydro. As for the towing - you are correct. Towing reduces range no matter what sort of vehicle. A petrol car that does 700km on a tank normally will only get 400 when towing. An ev will also see a similar range drop. The difference currently is that most evs have a small amount of energy in comparison. ie Tesla model 3 new with 60kwh battery will do 400km or 250 towing. But that is only the equivalent of about 7l of petrol energy. A new EV from China is now coming with a 150kwh battery and a 1000km range - real world say 700, so towing, 400. same as the petrol car. There is currently only 1 EV ute in NZ available. It is 2 wheel drive with not a very large amount of ground clearance and a relatively small battery. There are 50 registered of the LDV eT60 electric utes. Which have only been on sale for about 9 months now out of a total of about 38,000 Evs.
Fascinating video thank you, but I still have several issues with EV's. All sounds great in an ideal world but:- 1- What happens to all the 1000's of garages, mechanics, and engine part manufactures who will no longer be required? This cannot be progress. 2- We are miles off (Excuse the pun!) being anywhere near having the infrastructure for all the charges required. 3- The average person cannot afford even the cheapest electric car. 4-Not everyone can afford an expensive solar power installation, so the power is not cheap or free. Where is all the power going to come from? Burning a lot more fossil fuel, or building dozens of nuclear power stations? 5- Last time a looked we do not live in a dictatorship. However, after the government spent years saying we should all buy diesel cars, now you are penalised if you do and told we have to all buy electric within 7 years! (Maybe we should follow the money from the manufactures and see who's at the end of it😂) 6- Lastly, the big white elephant in the room, these batteries are lethal when they catch fire and suffer failures such as thermal runaway due to the huge amount of heat created. Basically, due to basic science with the Heat, Fuel, and the Oxygen triangle, they are extremely difficult to put out. Something aircraft manufactures like to keep quiet and after 3 near fatal accidents on the new Boeing 787, now all their batteries are housed in near bomb proof cases! The Fire Brigade are extremely concerned about this issue (But obviously being silenced) and a recent electric vehicle fire took three days to put out! I don't fancy one of them parked next to my house! Anyway, like I said, fascinating video and I love your cat!
Hi Stuart, glad you liked the video. Those are some really good questions! I'll be happy to answer them briefly, although I have covered these topics in my previous videos! Check out my #SolarSunday playlist for details. 1. I suppose the same thing that happened to the horse and carts. They're still around, just in smaller numbers. This objection was honestly a real thing one hundred years ago. There are some newspaper clippings that are quite amusing to read these days with the knowledge that we have now. Incidentally, garages are still needed for tyres, suspension work, and the like. But the demand will disappear. Not overnight, but very slowly. ICE cars won't vanish when 2030 arrives. 2. True, but infrastructure is rolling out rapidly (pardon the pun). Can I ask, if you drive an EV - are you speaking from experience or from something you've heard here? 3. This is because electric cars are new and new things are invariably expensive. The price is falling rapidly, and don't forget that electric cars, whilst costing a little more up front, cost much less to run over time. This can balance the finances. 4. I answer this in my video here. I spoke with a senior engineer at the National Grid last week. She told me that this myth is the one she hears so often. It's nonsense, I'm afraid. There's plenty of electricity - consider where petrol and diesel comes from and how it is made. Clue: It's the largest consumer of our electricity supply in the UK. 5. We aren't being forced to buy anything, whether diesel cars under Tony Blair, nor electric cars now. 6. The fire brigades are not being silenced. I even visited several and showed them my electric car (this was even in our local news at the time). You are 10x (or more) less likely to experience an EV fire than a fire in a petrol or diesel vehicle. Thermal runaway as you have correctly identified - is the risk. Modern EVs manage this within their batteries. Thermal runaway is more of a risk with laptops, and smartphones since these batteries cannot be easily thermally managed and cooled. The cat (Emma) says thanks! :-)
@@shou635 In the first instance, where did I say anything about range anxiety? In the second, if you want to sell the idea of EVs to ICE drivers, I suggest you first go look up 'empathy' and try to exercise some when dealing with people who *do* have range anxiety. For them, it ain't overblown.
@@DivingDeveloper Hi! Thank you for your very detailed reply, much appreciated! Yes prices will naturally come down but I fear not quick enough, and I am still concerned that people will lose jobs with the loss of ICE's. Reference infrastructure, this is from work colleagues who drive EV's, and a very unbiased documentary on the BBC of all places! They stated we were a country mile away from fitting enough charges. I think we are being forced to buy electric cars because there will be no other choice after 2030 unless I am mistaken. Reference car fires, I work very closely with the fire brigade in my nature of business. Trust me there are still a lot of genuine concerns about this matter! Very interesting point you made ref answer 4 and the National Grid. This is not something I had considered, so I stand corrected and thank you for that information. As a hardened petrol head (As you have probably guessed!😂😂) I am still not convinced I'm afraid, and standby many of my concerns. However as you kindly took the time to reply with some interesting facts I didn't know, I will indeed subscribe and watch your Solar Sunday playlist. Luv to Emma!
Your ad hominem, supercilious attacks on RA spoil any valid points you make. EVs are not there (yet). They currently arrive in the showroom with awful environmental impact and limited lifespan, not to mention inconvenient daily use. 70% recyclable at end of life? Sounds very optimistic, I hope you are right. If you climb down a little from your theoretical, academic soap box and look at things with a more open mind, you might find that many real world users are bitterly disappointed with their EVs, including costs. They are returning to ICE for the present, but keeping an eye on future developments.
I’m not sure what you mean by 70%. Batteries are 100% recycleable. Can you give me the time stamp for this part please? Environmental impact of EVs I attend to in the video - which part of this did you disagree with?
@@DivingDeveloper thanks for the reply. My misinterpretation.. at 7.20, you state that 100% of battery material is recoverable, 70% of which is currently done in China. The natural cynic in me suggests that 100% is not achievable. It's important to stress that diesel is indeed a hateful fuel, but as a snapshot, EVs are not a universal panacea as yet. If the electricity comes from sustainable sources, or dare I say even next generation nuclear (the horror!), then ok. However, that is not currently the case. You say to look at the alternatives and is it an improvement on what went before. Can you, hand on heart say, that in mid 2023, the cost to the environment of producing, running and scrapping an EV is without question lower impact than an ICE? I don't have that information, but I suspect it's not. Again, I stress "yet".
@@mtpeterteacher755 Hello, thanks for getting back to me. Look into Redwood Materials; they recover 95%. Several similar companies are starting up all over the place, including a few in the UK, that I hope to visit over the following year (stay tuned for that). The advantage to recycling batteries over mining cannot be understated; batteries are effectively high grade ore. There is a value to even consumed batteries. And it takes on average many hundreds of thousands of miles before an EV battery can be considered ready for replacement. One cannot say the same about an ICE engine for instance. I'm not sure why there is such an obsession with batteries. Although fossil fuel lobbyists are currently increasing the amount of FUD, which only confuses the issue for people.
@@mtpeterteacher755 Yes, the cost of producing and running an EV when powered by fossil fuels such as natural gas, breaks even versus the same lifetime cost of an ICE in approximately 2-3 years. That's been proven. Whole lifecycle. Running an EV from renewable energy, reduces that even further. That information is available if you want to Google for it - although I appreciate your 'suspect' qualifier. Nobody, I, you, anyone else should be absolute. Maybe that was my mistake citing 100% recyclable batteries when the real figure is around 95%... Someone's going to be pedantic and pull me up over it!
Rowan is right in most things he said. The electric infrastructure is still poor but better than what it was some years ago. Electric is not for everyone. EV cars are fantastic as second cars. They excel in city driving than ICE cars and they are less stressful to own if have a reliable place to charge. i.e. home or workplace. Please call a spade a spade.
You’ve raised some good points there. However Rowan’s information is many years out of date. It’s as though he drafted it in 2010 and only clicked send in 2023. Here’s a correction in The Guardian: amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
The creation of hydrogen is unfortunately **extremely** energy inefficient. I appreciate my video is quite long-winded but I do cover this in the clip. That said, with an over abundance of renewables such as seen in the Orkneys, making H2 and storing it is a worthwhile use of electricity. Otherwise just put it in an EV and profit on the massive efficiency savings.
the only question that everyone has to ask themselves is how many things do I still use on batteries/electricity and what else could I use on hydrogen?!
There seems to be quite a lot of content in the media this month relating to, “Yes the climate crisis a problem but let’s just WAIT and see if a better technology comes up down the line to save us all and keep the status quo in the meantime.” Delaying tactics from the monstrous fossil fuel lobby.
he knows more about cars and EV'S he may act like a twit in his films etc but then that is it acting. EV'S are heavy and do more in their building of the battery etc. EV'S produce more particulate than the internal combustion engine because the EV'S are heavy. we have people flying around for all these cops meetings but telling others not to . this climate warning shit is all bollocks. the mining of lithium is not environmentally friendly at all think you need to look at how they mine for all these elements to make these batteries the amount of diesel used by one truck alone to bring up enough material to build one battery. sorry you are talking crap look it all up properly electric cars are not the future. a tesla has to have a life of 9 years on the road before it becomes carbon neutral but the battery does not last it will need a new battery in that time it is on the road so it starts all over again. go back to your diving and leave the knowings of the EV cars to Rowan as he sure knows more than you about them. o and the climate emergency is bollocks it is all starting to come out now of all the lies we are being told.
I’m glad you enjoyed my video. Did you read the correction published by The Guardian? Link above in the pinned comment. My ideology is cleaner air - and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. What’s yours?
Another argument over batteries and EV. Another thread which lacks the most important reference in relation to success or failure missing. Thermodynamics. Learn it, understand it and know that to date, we have yet to find a way to overcome the rules we have had no choice but to live by. That my friend is why EVs are a failure and until a day arrives when someone has legitimately found a way to overcome the laws of thermodynamics, likely always will be.
Thanks, Cosmin. I think Rowan’s article is fine if he drafted it ten years ago and only just now clicked ‘send’. He’s just out of date and his data is old… like most of the negative comments on my video. 😂
Saying that EV's are co2 neutral is complete BS. They don't emit CO2 while driving. But building them has released more CO2 than petrol and diesel cars. That's basic physics and chemistry. That's the same as if dumping your dirt inside the neighbours and pretending you don't make dirt
That’s not true and you clearly haven’t watched my video before typing that. According to the International Energy Agency a typical ICE vehicle uses 6.0t of CO2 in manufacture and a typical EV uses 8.0t CO2. This difference is equivalent to a 100g/Km ICE engine driving for 20,000km. Ie - not a lot. An EV running on renewables ‘breaks even’ versus an ICE vehicle in less than 30k/km. Less if run on renewables.
Go against anything new and anything pushed on u and ur likely to win every time. Always be sceptical about who funds these people sent to debunk common sense.
I’m not funded at all. But guess who is? The fossil fuel lobby spend hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars a year to influence policy and disrupt and delay solutions to climate change. It’s quite likely your information has originated there.
@@DivingDeveloper ev is not the solution, that's my point. And maybe you're paid to say that he's wrong... Let me know, for your own comfort, how much dirt is needed to be moved for just one battery and if that thing is bothering you for a single bit. You don't give a f.u_c.k because the lithium is not processed in your country. That's the problem, we are whining that another country is polluting the planet, but they are doing that for our own comfort, and cheap stuff because we are too poor to afford a better quality, or locally produced.
@@yoshy2628 No, I'm not paid to say Rowan's wrong. He's just factually wrong. And there's a link to the correction piece published in the Guardian in the pinned comments. Lithium is processed in the UK, there's a new mine opening in Cornwall. There's no need to be rude and abusive - and so I won't continue this conversation with you.
How do you figure that? I disagree with @drivingdeveloper's perspective, but he's more likely than not correct that hydrogen is no good for direct use in cars. You can directly combust it, but it's underpowered and produces even more NOxes than even diesel, or you can use a fuel cell which requires even more esoteric metals than do batteries and electric motors.
Well, one of us is practicing professional critical thinking now, rather than in the early 70s. Once you’ve recovered from that ad hominem fallacy check out the corrections article posted in The Guardian recently; amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
EVs make more sense when a nation's energy generation is based on renewable sources. Here in Australia, our energy is almost 100% generated by coal-fired power stations. Cars are estimated to produce about 9% of the co2 emissions here, compared to power generation, which is estimated at around 45% of co2 emissions. So, even if we replaced every diesel and petrol car tomorrow with an EV-and let's ignore the stratospheric cost and waste involved for now-all we would do is send co2 levels through the roof. Then we have the batteries. Getting the lithium from Australia/Chile/Canada involves shipping it to Japan to be refined, then to China to be turned into a battery, then to whichever nation's car maker buys them, then to the dealer in the market country once installed in a car. That doesn't sound very environmentally friendly. I'm inclined to agree with Rowan. EVs have merit, but they are not the solution. We can't consume our way to a greener future. It's best to stick with your existing car, and maintain it.
Hello Mancunian, Thanks for stopping by my TH-cam channel. I hope you enjoyed the video? You've got a point that Australia really is lagging behind. However, please do not look at figures in isolation. Refineries being the largest consumer of electrical power. An EV powered from a coal power plant is STILL better for the environment than an Internal Combustion Engined vehicle. Also remember, that ICE vehicles run at low efficiencies, even after the expensive and power hungry refinery process. Most of the energy inside the process liquid fuel is lost in the byproducts of combustion and cannot be used. As for the mining industry... it's similar to the petrochemical one. Except that the products, lithium, cobalt, etc can be reused infinite times versus when it's burned in a combustion engine it is completely consumed never to be used again. That really isn't environmentally friendly. Rowan's argument on consumerism fails on a fallacy that cars simply don't expire after three years. They go on to live lives with second, third, fourth and so on owners.. Thanks again, Mike
@@DivingDeveloper You said that "An EV powered from a coal power plant is STILL better for the environment than an Internal Combustion Engined vehicle". Could you please provide a credible citation for this claim? Rowan doesn't present a fallacious argument in terms of consumerism. But EV proponents frequently do by claiming we can consume our way to a greener future by scrapping our perfectly good ICE cars and buying EVs to replace them. Consuming your way to a greener future is by its very nature a fallacious approach.
All I can say is, I’m glad I’m not a teenager (76) cars you just aim an squirt. 🥱 most batteries alone weigh half a ton, the Chinese own most of the lithium mines. Yes they have more torque available, but because of their weight, create far more brake dust and tires will wear out sooner. Just my 2 cents worth. 😔
Tyres can run out sooner if one is very heavy footed for sure. The performance is eyewatering, and somewhat addictive. I’ve found the Michelin Crossclimates to be extremely resilient however. 12k miles and still strong! EVs don’t create more brake dust. Hardly any in fact as they use the motors to regen (that’s capturing the kinetic energy and putting it back into the batteries rather than wasting it on the brakes). I’ve driven 25k miles and the pads and brakes are basically new. Hardly touched at all. Thanks for stopping by!
Also from last week the Tesla Model S has the track record at the Nurburgring! Taking it back from the Porsche Taycan (another electric car). So much for 🥱- more like 🤩!
Fact Check in The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
He's right but you are too blind to see it.
Or maybe paid to say it.
Absurdly heavy means when comparing a Volvo electric car to an identical production Volvo model with the only difference being the ICE engine; the electric version is 300kg heavier. In practical terms that's the equivalent additional weight of five passengers(at 60kg each) when it is empty. It's not about the lightest or heaviest EV that can be made. It's a like for like comparison of the EV weight versus an identical one featuring ICE.
And now ferries are considering a ban on EV's?
When the largest vehicle manufacturer on the planet ( and by some considerable way it has to be said) won't nail its colours to the EV mast, one has to ask why.
My background: my day job *is* as an electronic engineer (mostly in low power digital electronics, but I've done some stuff in medium power automotive electronics on occasion.)
My tuppence: EVs are 1) not (yet) economical sensible options for end users in the UK, 2) they are not (yet) as green as they look, and 3) they are nothing like as cheap to run as they appear, either. 4) I also have grave misgivings about grid infrastructure, but perhaps not quite for the reasons that are usually cited, and 5) I think that questions around the geopolitics of supply security of battery and electric motor metal ores remain troublingly unanswered. In summary, I think we're better off (for now) with petrol hybrids than with full EVs, but I hope that will be a short term state of affairs while these other issues are being ironed out.
Since this comment will be long enough already, I'll briefly outline my reasoning on each of those points, and later elaborate (with calculations if you wish) to justify those conclusions by way of follow up replies if you or anyone else is interested. First I should say that, in 2021, for the first and (quite possibly) only time in my life, I bought a car from new. I thought long and hard about whether to go hybrid or full EV (since I ruled out conventional ICE on principle and, anyway, was not all that much cheaper). The cars in contention were the Toyota Corolla 2.0 litre hybrid versus the VW ID3 Pro S which had comparable internal volume and driving performance.
On balance, I punted for the hybrid. Here's why, more or less corresponding with the numbering above:
1) the EV was at least £8k more expensive. At the then-current prices of electricity and petrol (this was before the energy crisis), the EV was about 5p/mi cheaper to run, but the capital difference meant that break even was approximately 160,000 miles. Worse, I anticipated that electricity prices would increase faster than petrol prices would, at least for the foreseeable future. That was largely out of cynicism of UK government, but it also was based in the economics of petrol vs electricity production as priced at the pump (or home).
2) I was not at the time aware that the carbon footprint of a brand new EV was greater than that of a petrol hybrid, but I was not surprised to read that nor to read that the EV will eventually beat the hybrid with carbon output over time.
Mainly, my reasoning here was that (at the time) gas turbine made for up to 50% of UK generation capacity, so up to half of the electricity used by an EV came from carbon anyway. I calculated that, in some countries like Germany and Poland, the carbon footprint of the electricity was only just better than the hybrid anyway because of their reliance on coal. But that says more about those countries than it does EVs.
3) EV tariffs, at the time, gave you about 5p/kWh at night, but daytime unit prices were about 30% extra. EV tariffs don't represent the true cost per mile, so I use the then-current any-time pricing (hence point 1). More importantly, I don't think these tariffs are going to endure indefinitely because of the economics and dynamics of generation and grid operation. It's convenient for now, even when they're selling energy for less than wholesale, but it isn't going to stay that way when EV market share is high enough.
4) NG-ESO have, in the past, claimed that there is adequate generation capacity because of the differences in diurnal demand. True, but solar is not available at night so there are fewer renewables to draw upon. The main problem, though, is it doesn't take account of "last mile" electricity infrastructure. You can add extra capacity to the HV side of a transformer, and you can increase the transformers capacity, but what limits charging capacity is the wire in the ground. (I have the applicable figures for my neighbourhood if you want them.)
5) So far as I have been able to glean, worldwide production of lithium, cobalt, copper, neodymium, praseodymium etc is nothing like enough sufficient to supply the expected demands for EVs if there is any chance at hitting the 2035 deadline. More than that, a lot of the known supply lies in potentially hostile territory, and largely out of the same cynicism I had for domestic generation and distribution capacity, I am sceptical that production can and will be scaled up sufficiently. Meanwhile, we need all of those ores for other applications other than just EV production (especially copper and lithium). You touched on this in your video, but only fleetingly and you didn't inquire into the viability of those sources.
Nothing much has happened (yet) to change my mind. If anything, the same argumentation seems to lean slightly more heavily toward hybrids, but there's not much in it. I think we'd do better to distribute what access to such ores we have over more cars that meet modern emissions standards than try to go all out and do EV only.
Against all this, I'm looking at this from the point of a consumer who needs a car to get by, so the difference between a car tyre and a bike tyre is not apposite because I can't cycle a 50 mile round trip. There is also a huge assumption that EVs of today will reflect the EVs of 10 years' time. Rare earth permanent magnets for motors and lithium for batteries are not the only way of doing those things, so perhaps 5) might be completely obviated by new ways of doing things.
(For now), that's JMO.
To address some of the points in your video:
6:44 Not sure your claim about lithium stacks up. A quick google produces the claim that »The Nature Conservancy report estimates “Nevada alone has the potential to supply the world with lithium for 85 years at 2021 demand levels.”«, which is not quite forever, and 2021 levels is a fraction of the demand required to satisfy the 2035 deadline. It also doesn't say much about how accessible these deposits are. There's no real question that there's the prospect of increasing capacity, including recycling materials in spent batteries etc. The question is whether these sources can and will be brought on line in time. I don't think you're engaging with the spirit of Atkinson's point here.
12:15 I do agree, though, Atkinson's analysis of battery longevity is unwarranted as of yet. You mentioned LiFePO₄ batteries, these are good for a bunch of other reasons. You mention progress; eg there are other chemistries like LiSOCl₂ (lithium thionyl chloride) which are completely inappropriate for EVs, but it demonstrates that there are horses for courses.
13:43 Blue hydrogen is usually manufactured by steam reformation of methane, which need not be a fossil fuel. Methane is a common byproduct of a lot of processes. Green hydrogen, ie by electrolysis of water, is an interestingly complex subject. There are some interesting things going on here (eg Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolysis), but it's a fairly immature field. I may be doing some stuff at $dayjob in an adjacent field later this year.
14:19 Why not make hydrogen? Why not indeed! (But admitting to mining bitcoin is probably not great if you want to make the case for EVs on environmental grounds.)
Hydrogen might have a future as an energy storage medium but I agree, it doesn't seem very likely for cars. Either you use a fuel cell which has its own esoteric materials demands. Or you can adapt a conventional ICE to burn hydrogen, but that's a crappy option because you get less power for a given displacement and you also get some nasty NOx pollution, more even than from diesel.
18:31 I do think Lawrence Dunn has a point: most people aren't in a position to afford the kind of capital to provision a solar/storage system of the capacity required to do what you say at this point. A little empathy would go a long way, particularly in advocacy for policy that would have to be workable for almost everyone.
26:25 Thermal efficiency of (the ironically named) Atkinson cycle ICE is about 40%. More conventional Otto cycle engines are less thermally efficient but produce more torque for a given displacement. I gather EVs are in the order of 70-85% in thermal efficiency. A lot better, to be sure, but let's not pretend that the difference between ICE and EVs is anything like as great as you suggest.
Overall, I think you're being a little hard on Rowan Atkinson. Reasonable minds may differ.
Tesla Model 3 or Y. Just go with that. All this other crap is meaningless.
@@shou635 Well, nope, because if ethics is remotely a consideration when choosing between EV or hybrid (or conventional), the last company I'd buy from is any connected to Elon Musk. Besides, even the 3 is far too expensive for what it is. There is no room for Tesla fanbois in this discussion.
More to the point, nothing you said has anything to do with what I wrote in the comment to which you replied.
I can't believe that you used science and common sense to battle emotions. The method of pseudo intellectuals, like this narrator, is to focus on one tiny piece of a problem, and analysing it to death. While they happily ignores 99% of the issues. This is the only way they can feel smart and not gets lambasted by real intellectuals.
@@Deontjie Idk. People tend to rely on intuition more than they should, especially when they don't realise their reasoning is more intuition than analytical. Most people (including myself) also suck at intuitive reasoning about large numbers (eg tax rates, income and wealth inequality), probability (classic example being the Monty Hall problem) and geometric series. And time, a lot of people really suck at reasoning about time, which is why I'm writing this comment rather than doing the work I should be doing!
I find it useful to try plugging in a few sourced numbers to a proposition to see whether what seems reasonable actually is. Many people are prepared, at least in principle, to change their minds when they see that sort of analysis, unless they are in some way invested in the proposition being true.
I had hoped that DrivingDeveloper might engage on that basis, but perhaps he's too invested in the idea that EVs are the Only Solution. Or maybe my comment was just too long.
Live a life of ev ownership without incentives, and also replace the battery with 50-60% of the cost of car.
Your argument is not correct, I am not saying I support Rowan's comments fully. But as I am part of the great car manufacturing earth killing dynasty, working for a major manufacture. The concept of the fully EV car unit is flawed and the major manufacturers do not see the investment in lithium processing as viable nor passing on the costs to their customers being practical. Toyota are right not to declare EV as their primary manufacturing objective. I doubt many of the major car producers would and I can't comment on the manufacture I work for as to their objectives. As for the infrastructure to support EV's, this is not the manufactures concern.
Actually no. Toyota just announced a major commitment to EV production. th-cam.com/video/Xw6VrQzEJx4/w-d-xo.html You really need keep up with the rapidly changing EV space before you choose your references. However, Toyota is famously full of sh!t. They have historically not made good on bold claims (cough, solid state batteries by 2020, cough). So referencing them is not a strong argument. Maybe ‘working for a major auto manufacturer’ finds you too much in a misinformed echo chamber.
It's not the theory of gravity, but the law of gravity😊
Rowan's right mate.
No is not😂
@@Dinulik762 Well, when you consider that an electric car as a carbon footprint 80% higher than a combustion vehicle, at the moment their production is complete (i.e., the moment they leave factory) and when you know that electric vehicles are charged with electricity that derives from coal plants, well.. you must admit that it's really all just propaganda
Here’s the correction: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
@@Dinulik762 Yes he is..........
I don't get the anti eV thing... It dosnt have a political edge or green motivation... They are just interesting, like many many many other products. Dosnt mean you don't like petrol cars anymore.
It seems driven by certain British 'news' outlets. They are interesting but talking with my distant Norwegian relatives for whom electrified transport is now very ordinary, it's somewhat boring and mundane (for them!) as well..! They're much more interested in what colour the car is than what form of propulsion it has...
@@DivingDeveloper all I can think of is my great grandad, probably moaning on about pesky internal combustion engines, when steam is soo much better... I mean where are they going to build all the petrol stations haha
Rowan obviously knows ehat he us talking about, all his arguments are solid.
Rowan Atkinson owns an impressive fleet of motors estimated to be worth over £12 million, could it be he’s protecting his assets 🤔😊
Ooo. Not a bad angle.
Rowan atkinson just makes some god points. He basically says look at more options then just pure EV and more importantly keep your gas car a little longer. But al you do in this video is trying do discredit him in al kinds of ways. Sorry but this is a very poor video
Hello Thomas, I'm glad you liked the video? I don't think you watched it since you missed the point (and yet, haven't pointed out anything in my video that you believe is incorrect).
If you prefer your content written rather than in a reaction here's the correction in The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
Towering inferno in oil refinery in US.
Wiki shows that lithium reserves are limited so no point pretending they are. Most lithium is not viable for extraction. In 2022 australia mined 1 percent of its total reserves and hardly anyone has an ev at the moment
Yeah there’s just 230 billion tonnes of lithium in seawater…
Of course it’s finite! There are no infinite resources on Earth (or anywhere in the universe for that matter…). For all practical purposes there is sufficient lithium.
As for nobody having an EV - the Model Y is the current top selling car. EV adoption is increasing rapidly. You might be seeing electric vehicles and not recognising them? They look like normal cars for the most part.
@@DivingDeveloper May I suggest that you read up on the physics and chemistry of lithium extraction. It's not so straight forward because Group I metals are generally soluble. Even if there were such volumes of lithium available, not all of it - perhaps very little of it - is available for commercially viable extraction, especially if it is diffusely distributed.
It is lithium refinement that is the bottleneck for larger mass production of electric vehicles, not extraction.
The batteries need to be refined to a very high degree to minimise degradation from use.
Elon Musk for has pushed for entrepreneurs to go into lithium refining as those already doing so are not scaling fast enough, to the point that Tesla is now in construction of a battery refinery in Texas to come online in a couple years.
@@Jogeta5 Okay yes, granted, I was lumping in refinement with extraction. It's not hard to run a sample through a mass-spec and prove lithium is present. It is another thing altogether to extract and separate Li+ from Na+ (and K+) in volume. It's a long, tedious and expensive operation. There is a lot of lithium in sea brine (unsurprisingly, because most salts of Group 1 elements, aka alkali metals such as those listed above, are soluble), but it is so diffuse in seawater it is not commercially feasible to extract.
To give you some idea, Na+ content of seawater is typically a bit less than 500mmol/L. I haven't been able to find reliable estimates for Li+ in unreduced brine, probably because it varies so much as to where you test. But seems to be in the order of nmol/L or less, ie eight or nine orders of magnitude less, on average.
@@DivingDeveloper Yes, there is plenty of lithium in seawater, but it's not feasible to extract it. From memory, there's about 500mmol/L of sodium in seawater versus an average of < 1nmol/L of lithium (1 mmol = 1,000,000 nmol). That's 8 or 9 orders of magnitude of difference. For all practical purposes, there may as well be no lithium in the sea at all - given the current state of the art, anyway.
Here's Rowan Atkinson's article... www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson
I am in diametric disagreement with much of what you say, I am however disinclined to dispute this with you because the whole EV -v- fossil fuel cars debate is, in reality, a complete and utter red herring, in that while EVs may or may not necessarily reduce 1st World climate damaging emissions, to a very small degree BTW, they will do absolutely nothing whatsoever to mitigate overall Global Warming! Why??? Simple...
In 1920, world population was close to 2bn and global CO2 emissions was around 3.5bn (metric) tonnes per annum. A century later, world population has doubled every 50 years and increased fourfold, and global CO2 emissions: TENFOLD!
Unless we can halt, and preferably reverse, exponential, global population expansion, greenhouse-gases' emissions will also continue to increase exponentially!
BTW... forgot to mention the population and CO2 figures are taken from Statista.
*_R._*
Hello Robin,
Your first comment ended up getting flagged for spam. I’m not sure why, but I’ve published it manually.
That’s an interesting viewpoint - it’s true that CO2 has increased as population has increased but is this merely correlation or causation as you suggest.
“Utter red herring” notwithstanding - and EVs will absolutely reduce carbon (it’s not a debate - the science is clear) - the whole, “carbon footprint” messaging is actually fossil fuel industry marketing. It comes as the fossil fuel industry needed a way to redirect focus and attention away from themselves, so they invented the concept of a “carbon footprint” and pushed attention to the individual, and away from their very, dirty dirty businesses.
2:00 .. so right off the bat, the virality of his opinion is infectious and hilarious. There's no way around scarcity and entropy, or that non passenger-vehicle 28 degree angle of approach that is just godly. Maybe he should've also mentioned how he once rescued someone out of a car crash, but that wouldn't have happened if it was a Tesla fireball instead. I think it's unnecessary to fan fuel into fire and it's difficult to approach this from any angle, but that someone from the car crash was hoarding 6% of the world's aluminum in the middle of the desert! Now I wonder where all the Tesla fireball rare earth metals are being hoarded at the moment.. 🤔
Electric vehicles were around many decades ago but didn't make any lasting impact then. So, why NOW?
Except for profits from something that many might think of as "new" - while fossil fuel is needed to power up
the charging points to see them on their limited way despite the prevailing climate change obsession!
“EVs had been outselling gas cars in America for a number of years, the 1899 US census recorded a total automobile production of 1,575 electric vehicles, 1,681 steam-powered vehicles and only 936 gas burning cars. In 1897, the Pope Manufacturing Company’s Columbia Motor Carriage was the best selling vehicle in the US, and yes, it was powered by electricity. But as time went on, gas cars caught up to and overtook EVs.” - TomTom
Why now? Because we know how much damage fossil fuel transportation is doing to the environment.
Even an EV charged from fossil fuel is cleaner. As explained in the video that I’m not sure you watched before you went to your keyboard to bang out an angry looking comment!
In Countries like New Zealand it would be pointless to promote selling more E.V's, but they do it anyway. The problem is there are limits to power generation and the national grid is already at peak capacity. Also when you add a lot of weight to an E.V. by towing a load the range is severely affected, this is where fuel powered vehicles have the advantage. Probably why E.V. utes have not been popular in NZ, a diesel ute outperforms them in almost every test.
(UK) NG-ESO have pointed out that there is adequate grid capacity because the time when EVs typically charge is overnight when diurnal load is least. That said, this logic doesn't work for LV distribution, which is inadequate in most places if most of the street have EVs. It can be done, but only by DNO-controlled sequencing of chargers in each household based on feedback from sensors at the transformer.
At least NZ has plenty of hydro. Huntley's going to be a problem, though.
You are incorrect. The state electricity board has stated that there is no generation issue with the whole 4 Million car fleet being EVs. I live in Auckland NZ.
The retail sector are wanting to put in network controllable home chargers so that they can reduce the load on the network if required - just like they do with electric hot water cylinders.
BTW 4Million cars doing 20,000km / year (average is 15,000) at an efficiency of 5km/kwh (tesla model 3 is 7km) is 16 TwH per year.
Currently the whole country uses 41 Twh - so an increase of about 30%.
For the nightly loading. If every ev plugged in every night to top up the average usage of 54km or 11Kwh, over the 10 hour of night time (9pm to 7am) the extra load would be approx 1kw * 4,000,000 or 4Gw of extra generation needed.
We currently peak at 6.5Gw of generation, so some more wind would be required - but that is already been built now.
If anything the current usage hasn't been growing over time as people switch to Led lights and heat pumps.
Also around 85-90% of our current generation is renewable. Hydro, wind, solar. Mostly hydro.
As for the towing - you are correct. Towing reduces range no matter what sort of vehicle. A petrol car that does 700km on a tank normally will only get 400 when towing. An ev will also see a similar range drop. The difference currently is that most evs have a small amount of energy in comparison. ie Tesla model 3 new with 60kwh battery will do 400km or 250 towing. But that is only the equivalent of about 7l of petrol energy. A new EV from China is now coming with a 150kwh battery and a 1000km range - real world say 700, so towing, 400. same as the petrol car.
There is currently only 1 EV ute in NZ available. It is 2 wheel drive with not a very large amount of ground clearance and a relatively small battery. There are 50 registered of the LDV eT60 electric utes. Which have only been on sale for about 9 months now out of a total of about 38,000 Evs.
Fascinating video thank you, but I still have several issues with EV's. All sounds great in an ideal world but:-
1- What happens to all the 1000's of garages, mechanics, and engine part manufactures who will no longer be required? This cannot be progress.
2- We are miles off (Excuse the pun!) being anywhere near having the infrastructure for all the charges required.
3- The average person cannot afford even the cheapest electric car.
4-Not everyone can afford an expensive solar power installation, so the power is not cheap or free. Where is all the power going to come from? Burning a lot more fossil fuel, or building dozens of nuclear power stations?
5- Last time a looked we do not live in a dictatorship. However, after the government spent years saying we should all buy diesel cars, now you are penalised if you do and told we have to all buy electric within 7 years! (Maybe we should follow the money from the manufactures and see who's at the end of it😂)
6- Lastly, the big white elephant in the room, these batteries are lethal when they catch fire and suffer failures such as thermal runaway due to the huge amount of heat created. Basically, due to basic science with the Heat, Fuel, and the Oxygen triangle, they are extremely difficult to put out. Something aircraft manufactures like to keep quiet and after 3 near fatal accidents on the new Boeing 787, now all their batteries are housed in near bomb proof cases! The Fire Brigade are extremely concerned about this issue (But obviously being silenced) and a recent electric vehicle fire took three days to put out! I don't fancy one of them parked next to my house!
Anyway, like I said, fascinating video and I love your cat!
Hi Stuart, glad you liked the video. Those are some really good questions! I'll be happy to answer them briefly, although I have covered these topics in my previous videos! Check out my #SolarSunday playlist for details.
1. I suppose the same thing that happened to the horse and carts. They're still around, just in smaller numbers. This objection was honestly a real thing one hundred years ago. There are some newspaper clippings that are quite amusing to read these days with the knowledge that we have now. Incidentally, garages are still needed for tyres, suspension work, and the like. But the demand will disappear. Not overnight, but very slowly. ICE cars won't vanish when 2030 arrives.
2. True, but infrastructure is rolling out rapidly (pardon the pun). Can I ask, if you drive an EV - are you speaking from experience or from something you've heard here?
3. This is because electric cars are new and new things are invariably expensive. The price is falling rapidly, and don't forget that electric cars, whilst costing a little more up front, cost much less to run over time. This can balance the finances.
4. I answer this in my video here. I spoke with a senior engineer at the National Grid last week. She told me that this myth is the one she hears so often. It's nonsense, I'm afraid. There's plenty of electricity - consider where petrol and diesel comes from and how it is made. Clue: It's the largest consumer of our electricity supply in the UK.
5. We aren't being forced to buy anything, whether diesel cars under Tony Blair, nor electric cars now.
6. The fire brigades are not being silenced. I even visited several and showed them my electric car (this was even in our local news at the time). You are 10x (or more) less likely to experience an EV fire than a fire in a petrol or diesel vehicle. Thermal runaway as you have correctly identified - is the risk. Modern EVs manage this within their batteries. Thermal runaway is more of a risk with laptops, and smartphones since these batteries cannot be easily thermally managed and cooled.
The cat (Emma) says thanks! :-)
Definitely +1 for the cat!
Most EV drivers do not have range anxiety. Overblown concern.
@@shou635 In the first instance, where did I say anything about range anxiety?
In the second, if you want to sell the idea of EVs to ICE drivers, I suggest you first go look up 'empathy' and try to exercise some when dealing with people who *do* have range anxiety. For them, it ain't overblown.
@@DivingDeveloper Hi! Thank you for your very detailed reply, much appreciated!
Yes prices will naturally come down but I fear not quick enough, and I am still concerned that people will lose jobs with the loss of ICE's.
Reference infrastructure, this is from work colleagues who drive EV's, and a very unbiased documentary on the BBC of all places! They stated we were a country mile away from fitting enough charges.
I think we are being forced to buy electric cars because there will be no other choice after 2030 unless I am mistaken.
Reference car fires, I work very closely with the fire brigade in my nature of business. Trust me there are still a lot of genuine concerns about this matter!
Very interesting point you made ref answer 4 and the National Grid. This is not something I had considered, so I stand corrected and thank you for that information.
As a hardened petrol head (As you have probably guessed!😂😂) I am still not convinced I'm afraid, and standby many of my concerns. However as you kindly took the time to reply with some interesting facts I didn't know, I will indeed subscribe and watch your Solar Sunday playlist. Luv to Emma!
Your ad hominem, supercilious attacks on RA spoil any valid points you make.
EVs are not there (yet). They currently arrive in the showroom with awful environmental impact and limited lifespan, not to mention inconvenient daily use.
70% recyclable at end of life? Sounds very optimistic, I hope you are right.
If you climb down a little from your theoretical, academic soap box and look at things with a more open mind, you might find that many real world users are bitterly disappointed with their EVs, including costs. They are returning to ICE for the present, but keeping an eye on future developments.
I wasn’t sure I made any attacks. Can you give me the time stamps in the video where I did and I’ll take another listen.
I’m not sure what you mean by 70%. Batteries are 100% recycleable. Can you give me the time stamp for this part please?
Environmental impact of EVs I attend to in the video - which part of this did you disagree with?
@@DivingDeveloper thanks for the reply. My misinterpretation.. at 7.20, you state that 100% of battery material is recoverable, 70% of which is currently done in China. The natural cynic in me suggests that 100% is not achievable. It's important to stress that diesel is indeed a hateful fuel, but as a snapshot, EVs are not a universal panacea as yet.
If the electricity comes from sustainable sources, or dare I say even next generation nuclear (the horror!), then ok.
However, that is not currently the case. You say to look at the alternatives and is it an improvement on what went before. Can you, hand on heart say, that in mid 2023, the cost to the environment of producing, running and scrapping an EV is without question lower impact than an ICE? I don't have that information, but I suspect it's not. Again, I stress "yet".
@@mtpeterteacher755 Hello, thanks for getting back to me.
Look into Redwood Materials; they recover 95%. Several similar companies are starting up all over the place, including a few in the UK, that I hope to visit over the following year (stay tuned for that).
The advantage to recycling batteries over mining cannot be understated; batteries are effectively high grade ore. There is a value to even consumed batteries. And it takes on average many hundreds of thousands of miles before an EV battery can be considered ready for replacement. One cannot say the same about an ICE engine for instance.
I'm not sure why there is such an obsession with batteries. Although fossil fuel lobbyists are currently increasing the amount of FUD, which only confuses the issue for people.
@@mtpeterteacher755 Yes, the cost of producing and running an EV when powered by fossil fuels such as natural gas, breaks even versus the same lifetime cost of an ICE in approximately 2-3 years.
That's been proven. Whole lifecycle.
Running an EV from renewable energy, reduces that even further.
That information is available if you want to Google for it - although I appreciate your 'suspect' qualifier. Nobody, I, you, anyone else should be absolute. Maybe that was my mistake citing 100% recyclable batteries when the real figure is around 95%... Someone's going to be pedantic and pull me up over it!
Cars sucks! Get a bike save our planets and your healt! So you got a Tesla I suppose that's why swetting so hard.
Hello, Magnus. I have a bike, thanks and my health is excellent. I’m not sure why you seem angry about Tesla?
What's more, neither cobalt nor lithium are rare earth metals. Rare earths aren't used in battery manufacture.
how stupid are you?? your completely wrong idiot
Plus, LFP batteries don’t even use cobalt.
£250 a year second hand Kia Sportage diesel 500 miles range £1200 for a second hand Tesla model 3 200 miles. EVs are rubbish.
Rowan is right in most things he said. The electric infrastructure is still poor but better than what it was some years ago. Electric is not for everyone. EV cars are fantastic as second cars. They excel in city driving than ICE cars and they are less stressful to own if have a reliable place to charge. i.e. home or workplace. Please call a spade a spade.
You’ve raised some good points there. However Rowan’s information is many years out of date. It’s as though he drafted it in 2010 and only clicked send in 2023.
Here’s a correction in The Guardian: amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
Have you thought about the fact that a Hydrogen car would weigh less and therefore be more efficient?
The creation of hydrogen is unfortunately **extremely** energy inefficient. I appreciate my video is quite long-winded but I do cover this in the clip.
That said, with an over abundance of renewables such as seen in the Orkneys, making H2 and storing it is a worthwhile use of electricity.
Otherwise just put it in an EV and profit on the massive efficiency savings.
the only question that everyone has to ask themselves is how many things do I still use on batteries/electricity and what else could I use on hydrogen?!
I was really surprised at how non fact checked Atkinson was. It was a click bait hit piece.
There seems to be quite a lot of content in the media this month relating to, “Yes the climate crisis a problem but let’s just WAIT and see if a better technology comes up down the line to save us all and keep the status quo in the meantime.”
Delaying tactics from the monstrous fossil fuel lobby.
Rowan is correct on all his points. You re incorrect.
He’s not you know. Corrections here: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
Mate, thanks for the content, but your sarcasm and arrogance overpower the context of your video… whatever that might be. Thanks anyway
Thanks! I guess.
Atkinson is right
You don't like rowan
he knows more about cars and EV'S he may act like a twit in his films etc but then that is it acting.
EV'S are heavy and do more in their building of the battery etc.
EV'S produce more particulate than the internal combustion engine because the EV'S are heavy.
we have people flying around for all these cops meetings but telling others not to .
this climate warning shit is all bollocks.
the mining of lithium is not environmentally friendly at all think you need to look at how they mine for all these elements to make these batteries the amount of diesel used by one truck alone to bring up enough material to build one battery.
sorry you are talking crap look it all up properly electric cars are not the future.
a tesla has to have a life of 9 years on the road before it becomes carbon neutral but the battery does not last it will need a new battery in that time it is on the road so it starts all over again.
go back to your diving and leave the knowings of the EV cars to Rowan as he sure knows more than you about them.
o and the climate emergency is bollocks it is all starting to come out now of all the lies we are being told.
To me your video and arguments are not convincing at all. Seems very much ideologically driven.
I’m glad you enjoyed my video. Did you read the correction published by The Guardian? Link above in the pinned comment.
My ideology is cleaner air - and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. What’s yours?
Another argument over batteries and EV. Another thread which lacks the most important reference in relation to success or failure missing.
Thermodynamics.
Learn it, understand it and know that to date, we have yet to find a way to overcome the rules we have had no choice but to live by. That my friend is why EVs are a failure and until a day arrives when someone has legitimately found a way to overcome the laws of thermodynamics, likely always will be.
What particular aspect of thermodynamics do you see as being a problem for EVs?
What particular aspect of thermodynamics do you see as the issue for EVs when they are around 3-4 times more thermally efficient,
because he is just a famous sheep and has no idea about the current level of electric cars 😊 keep up with good work 🍻
Thanks, Cosmin. I think Rowan’s article is fine if he drafted it ten years ago and only just now clicked ‘send’.
He’s just out of date and his data is old… like most of the negative comments on my video. 😂
@@DivingDeveloper Agrreed. Many of the negative talking points are dated and void of valid research. The EV space is progressing every month.
Saying that EV's are co2 neutral is complete BS. They don't emit CO2 while driving. But building them has released more CO2 than petrol and diesel cars. That's basic physics and chemistry. That's the same as if dumping your dirt inside the neighbours and pretending you don't make dirt
That’s not true and you clearly haven’t watched my video before typing that.
According to the International Energy Agency a typical ICE vehicle uses 6.0t of CO2 in manufacture and a typical EV uses 8.0t CO2.
This difference is equivalent to a 100g/Km ICE engine driving for 20,000km. Ie - not a lot.
An EV running on renewables ‘breaks even’ versus an ICE vehicle in less than 30k/km. Less if run on renewables.
Go against anything new and anything pushed on u and ur likely to win every time. Always be sceptical about who funds these people sent to debunk common sense.
I’m not funded at all. But guess who is? The fossil fuel lobby spend hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars a year to influence policy and disrupt and delay solutions to climate change.
It’s quite likely your information has originated there.
@DivingDeveloper - do you know how many resources are used to build an EV?
Take a guess...
Ps - I don't own a car, bicycle user.
Yes, I do. What’s your point?
@@DivingDeveloper ev is not the solution, that's my point.
And maybe you're paid to say that he's wrong...
Let me know, for your own comfort, how much dirt is needed to be moved for just one battery and if that thing is bothering you for a single bit.
You don't give a f.u_c.k because the lithium is not processed in your country.
That's the problem, we are whining that another country is polluting the planet, but they are doing that for our own comfort, and cheap stuff because we are too poor to afford a better quality, or locally produced.
@@yoshy2628 No, I'm not paid to say Rowan's wrong. He's just factually wrong. And there's a link to the correction piece published in the Guardian in the pinned comments.
Lithium is processed in the UK, there's a new mine opening in Cornwall.
There's no need to be rude and abusive - and so I won't continue this conversation with you.
Good question. Obviously DivingDeveloper does not have a clue. He could have answered no, I don't know. But he chose the coward option.
I guess diving developer is not an electrical engineer.
Hydrogen powered cars are the future, not EVs.
There’s currently one on autotrader. Be quick to snap it up if you want to be part of the future of motoring before it’s gone!
How do you figure that? I disagree with @drivingdeveloper's perspective, but he's more likely than not correct that hydrogen is no good for direct use in cars. You can directly combust it, but it's underpowered and produces even more NOxes than even diesel, or you can use a fuel cell which requires even more esoteric metals than do batteries and electric motors.
As an ex electrical engineer he probably knows a bit more a software developer!!
Well, one of us is practicing professional critical thinking now, rather than in the early 70s.
Once you’ve recovered from that ad hominem fallacy check out the corrections article posted in The Guardian recently; amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
EVs make more sense when a nation's energy generation is based on renewable sources. Here in Australia, our energy is almost 100% generated by coal-fired power stations. Cars are estimated to produce about 9% of the co2 emissions here, compared to power generation, which is estimated at around 45% of co2 emissions. So, even if we replaced every diesel and petrol car tomorrow with an EV-and let's ignore the stratospheric cost and waste involved for now-all we would do is send co2 levels through the roof.
Then we have the batteries. Getting the lithium from Australia/Chile/Canada involves shipping it to Japan to be refined, then to China to be turned into a battery, then to whichever nation's car maker buys them, then to the dealer in the market country once installed in a car. That doesn't sound very environmentally friendly.
I'm inclined to agree with Rowan. EVs have merit, but they are not the solution. We can't consume our way to a greener future. It's best to stick with your existing car, and maintain it.
Hello Mancunian,
Thanks for stopping by my TH-cam channel. I hope you enjoyed the video?
You've got a point that Australia really is lagging behind. However, please do not look at figures in isolation. Refineries being the largest consumer of electrical power. An EV powered from a coal power plant is STILL better for the environment than an Internal Combustion Engined vehicle. Also remember, that ICE vehicles run at low efficiencies, even after the expensive and power hungry refinery process. Most of the energy inside the process liquid fuel is lost in the byproducts of combustion and cannot be used.
As for the mining industry... it's similar to the petrochemical one. Except that the products, lithium, cobalt, etc can be reused infinite times versus when it's burned in a combustion engine it is completely consumed never to be used again. That really isn't environmentally friendly.
Rowan's argument on consumerism fails on a fallacy that cars simply don't expire after three years. They go on to live lives with second, third, fourth and so on owners..
Thanks again,
Mike
@@DivingDeveloper You said that "An EV powered from a coal power plant is STILL better for the environment than an Internal Combustion Engined vehicle". Could you please provide a credible citation for this claim?
Rowan doesn't present a fallacious argument in terms of consumerism. But EV proponents frequently do by claiming we can consume our way to a greener future by scrapping our perfectly good ICE cars and buying EVs to replace them. Consuming your way to a greener future is by its very nature a fallacious approach.
@@themancuniancandidate2744 bfy.tw/UAIe
All I can say is, I’m glad I’m not a teenager (76) cars you just aim an squirt. 🥱 most batteries alone weigh half a ton, the Chinese own most of the lithium mines. Yes they have more torque available, but because of their weight, create far more brake dust and tires will wear out sooner. Just my 2 cents worth. 😔
Tyres can run out sooner if one is very heavy footed for sure. The performance is eyewatering, and somewhat addictive. I’ve found the Michelin Crossclimates to be extremely resilient however. 12k miles and still strong!
EVs don’t create more brake dust. Hardly any in fact as they use the motors to regen (that’s capturing the kinetic energy and putting it back into the batteries rather than wasting it on the brakes). I’ve driven 25k miles and the pads and brakes are basically new. Hardly touched at all.
Thanks for stopping by!
Also from last week the Tesla Model S has the track record at the Nurburgring! Taking it back from the Porsche Taycan (another electric car).
So much for 🥱- more like 🤩!