Electric cars long term owners

[ollie989898]

That doesn't sound right to me. Vehicles burn thousands of gallons of fuel over their lifetime, most of which ends up as heat and noise.

This article reckons the energy required to build a car is about 30 tank full of fuel. Less than a years worth of fuel.

How Much Energy Does It Take to Build a Car?

Thousands of cars are built every day. So as we move into an era of environmental awareness and energy efficiency, let's try to estimate just how much energy is used to build a car.

www.motorbiscuit.com

Yeah, right. So all the aluminium and steel involved, and the plastics and rubber didn't cost any energy to produce? That article is manufacturing propaganda. The fact is people buying a new car every 3 years are raping the planet as hard as people doing shed loads of flying. No reason cars won't go 10-15 years easily.

 

[Bloders]

Yeah, right. So all the aluminium and steel involved, and the plastics and rubber didn't cost any energy to produce? That article is manufacturing propaganda. The fact is people buying a new car every 3 years are raping the planet as hard as people doing shed loads of flying. No reason cars won't go 10-15 years easily.

please rmember though that the cars are not scrapped at 3 years old, they are re-used by another owner. I dont know what the acerage of a car getting scrapped is?
I do agree though, why the UK has teh obsession with so much new stuff, including trucks and tractors etc.

 

[ollie989898]

please rmember though that the cars are not scrapped at 3 years old, they are re-used by another owner. I dont know what the acerage of a car getting scrapped is?
I do agree though, why the UK has teh obsession with so much new stuff, including trucks and tractors etc.

Of course, but someone still caused the manufacture of a fudging new one for absolutely no reason. And these days, it's not like each new car suddenly does 20 mpg than the old one. In reality the newer ones are bigger, heavier and thirstier.

 

[DaveGrohl]

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/xc40-electric/specification/volvo-carbon-footprint-report.pdf

Only glanced at this but might be of interest?

 

[feilding]

The greenest way is to keep a vehicle 20-25 yrs. Not just replace every 2-3 yrs . Just to have the latest model. The problem I see is modern vehicles are so crap they won't last very long.

 

[Bloders]

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/xc40-electric/specification/volvo-carbon-footprint-report.pdf

Only glanced at this but might be of interest?

the graph on page 4 is very interesting
Noting that the report assumes a life of 200,000Ks for the car (120K miles). I do not know what the average scrapping mileage of a car is, as that could have a significant effect on the results.

It is also interesting the amount of CO2 produed during manufacture compared to fuel use during life. This is not the balance i assumed it was.

Very interesting.

 

[Highland Mule]

The greenest way is to keep a vehicle 20-25 yrs. Not just replace every 2-3 yrs . Just to have the latest model. The problem I see is modern vehicles are so crap they won't last very long.

Probably not, if it’s a 25 year old model with 25 year old energy efficiencies and emissions. Have a look at the bar chart on page 24 of the Volvo report.

 

[DaveGrohl]

the graph on page 4 is very interesting
Noting that the report assumes a life of 200,000Ks for the car (120K miles). I do not know what the average scrapping mileage of a car is, as that could have a significant effect on the results.

It is also interesting the amount of CO2 produed during manufacture compared to fuel use during life. This is not the balance i assumed it was.

Very interesting.

It’s a Volvo report on a single model of their own cars, so good comparison, fair play to them for actually making the numbers public.

 

[ollie989898]

'The Carbon Footprint of a XC40 ICE is 58 tonnes of CO2e, whilst the footprint for the XC40 Recharge is 27-54 tonnes CO2e. The reason for the variation in the XC40 Recharge result is due to different electricity mixes with varying carbon intensity in the use phase'...

'When considering GHG emissions from the materials production and refining phase, producing an XC40 Recharge and it's battery pack results in roughly 70 more carbon emissions than producing an XC40 ICE'.

So. If you are running an electric car in a country that relies heavily on fossil fuels to generate electricity, you can expect basically fudge all carbon saving against an ICE version. Conclusion: we can't consume our way out of the carbon problem.

 

[kiwi pom]

please rmember though that the cars are not scrapped at 3 years old, they are re-used by another owner. I dont know what the acerage of a car getting scrapped is?
I do agree though, why the UK has teh obsession with so much new stuff, including trucks and tractors etc.

I believe the average age of the NZ car fleet is almost 15 years. Most of this is probably down to the fact that we don't salt the roads, so very little rust and there's no real emissions testing. Just on my street there's a lot of cars from the 90's and at least one from the 80's, so I can believe it.
The PM is on a mission to switch everyone over to electric or possibly Hydrogen as its claimed we can make green hydrogen because we have a lot of renewable energy.
At the end of the day its probably going to take a scrappage scheme to do it.

 

[Bloders]

So. If you are running an electric car in a country that relies heavily on fossil fuels to generate electricity, you can expect basically fudge all carbon saving against an ICE version. Conclusion: we can't consume our way out of the carbon problem.

Agree, BUT.
1) countries are moving away from fossil fuels to generate electricity and over the 200K life of the car, this move will increase. This is the current situation, so in that respect, worst case scenario (unless we build mroe coal fired power stations) In the UK we are already a significant proportion of renewable energy.
2) Even when the electric is produced from fossil fuels, over the life of the car, its carbon foot print is NO WORSE than an ICE engine
3) there must be some logic that generating pwoer centrally is cleaner than lots of little generator places with all the pollution control systems fitted, and the pollution is (whihc remember, is no worse) is not in city areas.

 

[DaveGrohl]

'The Carbon Footprint of a XC40 ICE is 58 tonnes of CO2e, whilst the footprint for the XC40 Recharge is 27-54 tonnes CO2e. The reason for the variation in the XC40 Recharge result is due to different electricity mixes with varying carbon intensity in the use phase'...

'When considering GHG emissions from the materials production and refining phase, producing an XC40 Recharge and it's battery pack results in roughly 70 more carbon emissions than producing an XC40 ICE'.

So. If you are running an electric car in a country that relies heavily on fossil fuels to generate electricity, you can expect basically fudge all carbon saving against an ICE version. Conclusion: we can't consume our way out of the carbon problem.

Your last sentence should be branded into the foreheads and rrses of every human alive but especially politicians and CEOs. It should be on every billboard and every advert should be this.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Agree, BUT.
1) countries are moving away from fossil fuels to generate electricity and over the 200K life of the car, this move will increase. This is the current situation, so in that respect, worst case scenario (unless we build mroe coal fired power stations) In the UK we are already a significant proportion of renewable energy.
2) Even when the electric is produced from fossil fuels, over the life of the car, its carbon foot print is NO WORSE than an ICE engine
3) there must be some logic that generating pwoer centrally is cleaner than lots of little generator places with all the pollution control systems fitted, and the pollution is (whihc remember, is no worse) is not in city areas.

For me, by far the biggest benefit of BEVs is the big reduction in tailpipe pollution in cities. Yes fossil fuels are still being burned elsewhere but a little more efficiently. And as you point out, some leccy is being produced with little carbon.

 

[ollie989898]

Agree, BUT.
1) countries are moving away from fossil fuels to generate electricity and over the 200K life of the car, this move will increase. This is the current situation, so in that respect, worst case scenario (unless we build mroe coal fired power stations) In the UK we are already a significant proportion of renewable energy.
2) Even when the electric is produced from fossil fuels, over the life of the car, its carbon foot print is NO WORSE than an ICE engine
3) there must be some logic that generating pwoer centrally is cleaner than lots of little generator places with all the pollution control systems fitted, and the pollution is (whihc remember, is no worse) is not in city areas.

But it creates 70% more emissions just manufacturing the thing in the first place.

 

[sjt01]

But it creates 70% more emissions just manufacturing the thing in the first place.

and pays it back in around 35,000 miles on a normal European electricity supply. One of our cars has done 94,000 miles and another 72,000, so well in carbon credit, and hoping to keep them for as long again minimum

 

[HatsOff]

Yeah, right. So all the aluminium and steel involved, and the plastics and rubber didn't cost any energy to produce? That article is manufacturing propaganda. The fact is people buying a new car every 3 years are raping the planet as hard as people doing shed loads of flying. No reason cars won't go 10-15 years easily.

Last time I checked, all cars contain aluminium, steel, plastics and rubber, whether they are petrol/diesel or battery powered.

I couldn't find a better source so will gladly be corrected. But in my head, thousands of gallons of fuel equals a lot of energy.

 

[ollie989898]

Last time I checked, all cars contain aluminium, steel, plastics and rubber, whether they are petrol/diesel or battery powered.

I couldn't find a better source so will gladly be corrected. But in my head, thousands of gallons of fuel equals a lot of energy.

This is my point- manufacturing new cars has an abysmal environmental footprint regardless of how they are propelled.

 

[Bloders]

But it creates 70% more emissions just manufacturing the thing in the first place.

and?

 

[JACK F]

Hybrid range rover battery just failed. 7 years old with 68,000 miles. (5 year warranty).
Want £21,000 for new battery. Head is still spinning at the news. Not sure what I will do going forwards with it yet.
Can see lots of perfectly good cars being scrapped early as not worth cost of replacing batteries. Not very environmentally friendly. Going to be no 2nd hand market for these cars as too risky. I won't be buying another.
That was not a misprint £21,000. Fitting, labour etc will be on top.

 

[Highland Mule]

Hybrid range rover battery just failed. 7 years old with 68,000 miles. (5 year warranty).
Want £21,000 for new battery. Head is still spinning at the news. Not sure what I will do going forwards with it yet.
Can see lots of perfectly good cars being scrapped early as not worth cost of replacing batteries. Not very environmentally friendly. Going to be no 2nd hand market for these cars as too risky. I won't be buying another.
That was not a misprint £21,000. Fitting, labour etc will be on top.

Get it to a battery specialist and just replace the bits that are broken - inside it’s just lots of little laptop batteries.