Vocal Voices

Sometimes you come across a well created chart which really gets the picture over.

In this one the amount of electricity on the far left, in yellow, produces the power and movement, on the far right, in the orangey colour.

It is a bit confusing because the amount of electricity is denoted by how tall it is, not how far left to right.

And, yes, that is 3 times the energy to go with hydrogen fuel cell and 7 times the energy for E-petrol.

If the image is so well created how can it be so confusing?

The answer is simple. It is from twitter's (X) photo blobstore and could have been created by anyone given that there is no peer reviewed article to accompany it.

It has no context so I will ignore it.

So how about the copenhagen centre on energy efficiency?



Good enough for you?

No! It's 5 1/2 yr-old article which is very selective in making its supposed point with no indication as to where the figures in the image came from. They are just there. Read it.

It is so obviously biased towards BEVs and simultaneously anti fuel cell and hydrogen, as well as other systems, as to make it almost worthless.

There has long been an agenda that only BEVs and EVs can save us from climate catastrophe, this is one and I am not buying into it. A lot of CO2 and rare earth metals are expended in producing solar panels, batteries and windmills, but the zealots brush them off as inconsequential, same as they do with their damage to various environments, but hey.

It is not an agenda, it is physics.

If you are going to drive wheels by electric the minimum number of energy sapping steps between generation and use the more efficient it is.

Fuel cells are 64% efficient at turning hydrogen into electricity. Electrolysis is also less than 100%. Nobody challenges this.

The second image is not truthful.

Energy loses in electrolysis are near to the mark for FCs, but what are these Transport, Storage and distribution loses? 23% for FCs seems high and the 6% for a battery is way too low. BEVs can lose up to 25% of charge when in use. Paints a different picture.

When it comes to fuel production efficiency (H2 to elec) the figures are also skewed. Modern fuel cell efficiency is in the region of 70 to 80% not the 47% quoted... and they are improving.

More paint, another different picture.

Any news on the environmental damage of batteries?

The agenda is that only BEVs and EVs can save us and that's not physics.

Just as modern FC's are increasing in efficiency, modern BEV are hitting 98% efficiency.

For H2, Cryo transport is required, cryo storage is required and losses happen both in the transport and the pumping to storage. Not to mention the vehicles required to transport the H2 assuming that we will not create a whole new H2 pipeline system. Especially as that pipeline would need to be replaced every decade. As would the tankers to transport the H2. Hydrogen is a hugely destructive material even in liquid cryo state. This also goes for vehicle tanks. All those Mirai's sold in 2016 will need new H2 tanks in 2026 or they won't be certified to drive on the roads.

Whilst there is a loss on the "fuel transport" for BEV, it is in the grid infrastructure and that is already fairly well known. Although I agree, the figures I found on that are 8%-15% not 6%. However I suspect that the LH2 figures are pretty accurate.

The point is that even with 15% loss in transmission and 2% loss in use with a modern BEV, that is dramatically lower than H2 and this is before we consider the energy cost of creating the H2. Also the transmission network mostly exists and laying more cable is far, FAR, easier than building new pipelines and the cables last multiple decades.

Hydrogen is simply a waste of power which could be better used with storage and interconnects. Especially when talking about renewables which are not always on.

As for batteries? They are already recycling to 98% of the materials. Especially the rare and expensive ones. I suspect the least recycled are the plastics.

Let's be honest, EVs are not about saving the climate.

They are a sop to let those of us who 'have' to feel good about ourselves while we go about our consumerist lives. We slap ourselves on the back while consuming food, fast fashion and gadgets and gizmos brought in from thousands of miles away on bunker fuelled vessels, transported on diesel fuelled lorries or AVTUR fuelled jets. God help capitalism should that ever end,

We have to keep on keeping on.

The real problem is that there are more and more of us every day joining the consumerist society, and many more waiting in the wings aspiring to join. Unfortunately nobody wants to address that.

Meanwhile we utterly destroy all sorts of environments - abyssal plains, anyone. EV batteries are a big part of that. I have long said that it will not only be the climate that will do for us, it will be a whole host of other inter-connected disasters. Nobody listens, it is too hard to comprehend. Gaia principle.

As for batteries? They are already recycling to 98% of the materials.

No they are not - total ballcocks! 'Can' and 'are' are different things. Globally we recycle about 5% of EV batteries and the processes in doing so are energy intensive and / or need dangerous chemicals such as sulphuric or hydrochloric acids or hydrogen peroxides, even 'black mass' is not clean. Many LiBs go to landfill, so, totally green, eh? Reality is very different from the hype. Even if EV batteries have a second life they still need recycling as they do eventually die. That claim is not a positive, it's a delay.

Li-ion batteries are responsible for 48% of landfill fires - they are so green and climate friendly ain't they?

I agree the planet and the climate will change to a new state which humans cannot survive in at this population density.

EV's? EV are the second step in moving away from fossil fuel consumption. The first step was to start reducing the electricity generating mix. The third step will be to remove fuels from the home such as gas heating and cooking.

EV's only become more clean as the grid cleans up. Over 50% of power consumed on the grid is now produced by CO2 neutral means (yes Nuclear too and I'm in favour of that). This is up from only 25% a decade ago.

So an EV being driven a decade ago is now much cleaner today than it was then.

This is what it is about. Also only 5% of EV batteries have been recycled because over 80% of EV's still have their original battery. That number will only go up as more and more new EV's are sold every year. 10m last year.

Just as with anything else, BEV batteries are the cheapest source of the raw materials for batteries. They will be mined. But sufficient volume is not going to exist for at least a decade, maybe 3. So new batteries have to be made with new materials.

BTW the vast majority of Li batteries in landfill come from phones and laptops. Not from cars.

I wouldn't worry about it Suff.
With all the rumours about tax rises in the UK nobody is going to be able to run a car.
I knew I should have kept that Lambretta.