Thread: Shift to electric cars becomes inevitable

I could see myself driving one of these!!

www.teslamotors.com

It would make driving to work really fun.

Cheers,

Ken

Hung like Einstein, smart like a horse

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I believe this has been widely discredited. The LCA was very flawed. There is a prius vs jeep LCA somewhere, and it has the opposite conclusion.

See my comment above - any lifetime carbon emission assessment involves so many assumptions and guesses that you can get any answer you want. This applies to both the ones you mention. As with much argument on just about any subject, people decide their position and then find the facts to support it. Where the actual facts are so difficult to confirm (or vary so much) it is either impossible to find which one is right, or there is no single answer.

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

See my comment above - any lifetime carbon emission assessment involves so many assumptions and guesses that you can get any answer you want. This applies to both the ones you mention. As with much argument on just about any subject, people decide their position and then find the facts to support it. Where the actual facts are so difficult to confirm (or vary so much) it is either impossible to find which one is right, or there is no single answer.

John

I agree that there is a large error margin, and it is a bad idea to use an LCA to give an absolute number, but it can give you a fairly good comparison of 2 similar options. I disagree completely that you can use it to "get any answer you want" - only if you are unscrupulous and/or have poor data.

People producing accurate LCAs, use software packages like Simapro, which give you access to accurate databases, developed by competent research groups. You don't have all the data, but if you know that if Product A was manufactured from 1 tonne of Brazilian Steel and Product B was manufactured from 1 tonne of Australian steel you can extract quite accurate data on the emissions associated.

As long as you are comparing like for like and have as complete data as possible, then you can produce a fairly good answer.

Toyota Prius proves a gas guzzler in a race with the BMW 520d review | Used Car Reviews | Driving - Times Online

For those that don't want to read, fuel used on test Prius 11.34 gallons (48.1mpg), BMW 520d 10.84 gallons (50.3mpg).

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I agree that there is a large error margin, and it is a bad idea to use an LCA to give an absolute number, but it can give you a fairly good comparison of 2 similar options. I disagree completely that you can use it to "get any answer you want" - only if you are unscrupulous and/or have poor data.

People producing accurate LCAs, use software packages like Simapro, which give you access to accurate databases, developed by competent research groups. You don't have all the data, but if you know that if Product A was manufactured from 1 tonne of Brazilian Steel and Product B was manufactured from 1 tonne of Australian steel you can extract quite accurate data on the emissions associated.

As long as you are comparing like for like and have as complete data as possible, then you can produce a fairly good answer.

Yes, some data is available and accurate - but some of the really key figures are not.

A major one is the life of the vehicle - do you, or anyone else, have any idea of how long a a particular model vehicle, going into service today, is going to remain in service? (This is critical, because it is this figure that determines whether savings in operating emissions balance increases in manufacturing emissions). The best you can do is to go on past history and estimates of what is in the future, both of which are quite likely to be wrong. For example, if the current fuel costs result in high fuel usage vehicles being scrapped early, or for example the Prius has to be scrapped early because of lack of parts for older models, it changes everything.

The same sort of question hangs over exactly how the vehicle is recycled at the end of its life - it makes a very big difference if parts are reused versus simply being treated as a source of raw material.

In addition to this there are all sorts of choices that need to be made in the calculations - such as "did you include the transport of the iron ore from A to B".

Unfortunately, I have very grave suspicions about the completeness of the documentation of the software (i.e. does it really do what it claims to?), and also perhaps not the accuracy of the databases, but the applicability of the data. (I have run across very similar problems with the NSW government software used for property vegetation plans - how it works and the data is uses is "developed by competent researchers" and has "accurate databases" - but since the databases and the source code are secret, and I have seen a lot of faulty code and data in the last thirty odd years, my faith is a little shaky).

John

There's an electric motorbike. Think I first saw it in Silicon Chip magazine.

Cost $$$$$ but gets a good review. Still could do with better battery though. (think they are bringing new models out)

Here's the NRMA review-

Vectrix Maxi Scooter 2008 NRMA Two Wheels Review - NRMA Motoring & Services


The other thing mentioned in Silicon Chip was the development of Ultra Capacitors as storage devices either by themselves or to assist batteries.

The first part of the article can be seen here-
Silicon Chip Online - Beyond The Capacitor There Is The Ultracapacitor
(Unfortunately you need a subscription to see the full article)

Best bit about ultra capacitors is they take almost no time to recharge. An electric car could be recharged in about the same time as filling a tank of petrol.

The lifetime total energy cost of running vehicles relative to the work they are used for is far more important than relatively small differences in fuel consumption. A lot goes into making them in the first place, which makes ones that will do large mileages without excessive maintenence cost more environmentally efficient. As illustrated by earlier posts, a fuel drinking Hummer is not as bad as it first appears. A considerable proportion of parts from ones that are wrecked are likely to be recycled as spares to keep other ones going than straight into scrap and rubbish. This generally uses far less environmental resources than producing new parts, even from recycled materials.

I recall seeing articles in UK magazines expanding on how Land Rovers are environmentally efficient from this viewpoint. Includes claims that two thirds of all Land Rovers built since 1948 are still going - although some obviously would be in very run down condition. From the ones not going, a considerable proportion of the parts would have been recycled as spares.
Meanwhile, what low proportion of, say, FJ Holdens that were built are still around?

Would be interesting hearing comments from those who have seen what goes through car crushers. A lot of some models are largely throwaways.
Manufacturers would obviously generally prefer to supply cars that are not of Meccano set type construction that can relatively easily be rebuilt because it is likely to reduce demand for new ones in future.