The right to repair

Anything goes, and mine's a Guinness.
Tonibe63
Posts: 2126
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:05 pm
Has thanked: 308 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by Tonibe63 » Sat May 11, 2019 11:17 am

You and I are not a million miles apart in our thinking Dave 8-) .
My Wife and I combined do less than 15k miles a year, for the last 7 years my van ran on waste veg oil/biodiesel until it finally became terminal (it was made last century) and was replaced with a van with a dpf. My Wife does 6k miles a year doing journeys of around 5 to 10 miles each way so is a prime candidate for an all electric car, there is even a number of rapid charge points where she works but the upfront cost is enormous (we pay cash or debit card for all we buy) and the style of cars is limited.
Looking at the total environmental impact of electric vehicles from mining of raw materials to disposal of spent batteries (and everything in between) I'm not convinced there is enough honest research to convince me to get off the fence and hand over my hard earned cash. I live in hope because I really hate going to the local 'tax station'.
Open your eyes and you see what is in front of you but open your mind and you see a whole new World

Adventure Bike Rider New Issue Out Now
daveuprite
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:47 pm
Location: Limousin France
Has thanked: 859 times
Been thanked: 1100 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by daveuprite » Sat May 11, 2019 11:54 am

Tonibe63 wrote: ↑
Sat May 11, 2019 11:17 am
Looking at the total environmental impact of electric vehicles from mining of raw materials to disposal of spent batteries (and everything in between) I'm not convinced there is enough honest research to convince me to get off the fence and hand over my hard earned cash.
Yes there is, Toni. But it's not to be found in the mainstream media, or in the politicised arena of green party politics or obviously right wing climate change denial. It's to be found in the academic journals. Not exciting to read, but it is detailed and extensive. It is a VERY well researched area of expertise. Environmental Impact Assessment and Life Cycle Analysis are well established scientific disciplines. Remember it involves exhaustive (sic) study of manufacturing impact, operation phase impact and end-of-life. Boring perhaps, but rigorous and definitive. I used to manage teams that conduct these kind of studies, working on contracts for Defra, DCLG and the Treasury.

The broad conclusion of the vast majority of studies is that the manufacturing phase (sometimes known as 'well to tank') has a marginally larger environmental impact for EVs than the same phase for IC-engined vehicles, especially today when EV manufacturing is not yet at the same scale.

However this is hugely offset by the operation phase (sometimes known as 'tank to wheel'), when an EV often produces fewer than half the emissions tonnage of an IC engined vehicle over its life on the road. Of course this is largely dependent upon the electricity for charging being derived from renewable sources, and on precisely what the % mix of sources is (hydro/wind/wave/tidal/solar/nuclear/CHG/oil/coal etc).

The end-of-life / disposal phase brings broadly similar impacts, since many of the materials used in both types of vehicle are similar.

Here's an example of just one of hundreds of relevant academic studies on LCAs for electric vehicles compared to ICE vehicles. Hope you're comfortable with equations! If you are insomniac it will solve your problem immediately... :D I can send you more if you want... :shock:

Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles
Gowri Asaithambi
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India, Assistant Professor, gowri@nitk.ac.in
Martin Treiber
Technical University of Dresden, Germany, Senior Researcher, treiber@vwi.tu-dresden.de
Venkatesan Kanagaraj
Technical University of Dresden, Germany, Humboldt Research Fellow, vkanagaraj.iitm@gmail.com
Abstract Vehicles have become the primary cause of greenhouse gas emission. A comprehensive technique
used for estimating energy consumption and environmental impact of vehicles is known as life cycle assessment
which comprises of two parts: fuel life cycle and vehicle life cycle. Emissions from fuel life cycle is estimated
using GREET (greenhouse gases regulated emissions and energy consumption in transportation) model. Vehicle
life cycle emissions are calculated based on mass and type of material used for vehicle production, type of energy/
electricity used for vehicle operation and its life time. This chapter made a comparison between the life cycle
CO2 emissions of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and electric vehicles (EVs). The impacts of EVs are
highly dependent on vehicle operation energy consumption and the electricity mix used for charging. For example
EVs in China produce more CO2 emissions compared to ordinary ICE vehicles whereas that in Germany, USA,
and Japan produce less emissions.
1 Introduction
The transportation sector is one of the major contributors for global climate warming and greenhouse gas
emissions. In the last 10 years, the global CO2 emission increased by 13%, with 25% of the increase coming from
transportation sector. Furthermore, by 2050, the global CO2 emission is still expected to increase by 30%-50%
(Lin et al. 2011). The proportion of the total CO2 emissions by transportation sector is highest in China (30.98%)
followed by Germany (19.9%) and United States (7.86%) (International Energy Agency, 2013) and this proportion
varies across different countries.
Internal combustion engines (ICE) are the main power type of vehicles and contribute most of the total CO2
emission in the transport sector. Electric vehicles (EVs) may provide a more promising way to solve the problem
of CO2 emissions and air pollution. The advantage of EVs mainly include high tank-to-wheel efficiency, zero/low
local emissions and a quiet operation (Zhang et al. 2014). Therefore, many countries, especially those facing
severe energy and environmental problems, have paid great attention to develop EVs to partially replace the
conventional ICE vehicles. China has the largest market for electric cars in 2015, with over 225,720 registered
vehicles whereas United States has a stock of about 210,330 (International Energy Agency, 2016). In Germany,
there are 25,502 EVs on the road by 2016 (Federal Statistical Office, 2017).
However, in order to compare EV and ICE vehicles based on energy, emission and economic effects, a
comprehensive approach has to be considered. This approach is called life cycle assessment (LCA), which
includes all the steps required to produce a fuel, to manufacture a vehicle and to operate and maintain the vehicle
throughout its life time including disposal and recycling at the end of its life cycle. Figure 1 shows the life cycle
phases for a vehicle. Life cycle of a vehicle is divided into two categories: 1) fuel life cycle and 2) vehicle life
cycle. Fuel life cycle includes feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel distribution,
and fuel consumption. Vehicle life cycle includes vehicle material production, assembly, distribution, operation,
maintenance, and disposal.
2 Fuel Life Cycle Emissions
The fuel life cycle, also called Well-to-Wheel cycle, includes feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel
production, fuel distribution, and fuel combustion. This section discusses various studies which focused on
calculation of emission in fuel life cycle stage. In most of the studies, the GREET (greenhouse gases regulated
emissions and energy consumption in transportation) model by Wang 1999 was used for calculating the emissions
of the fuel life cycle. This model first estimates energy use and then the emissions of fuel throughput for all the
stages. In fuel cycle, emissions of pollutant i (e.g., CO2, NOx) for a particular stage of the life cycle is calculated
by the following formula summing over all fuel types j and technologies k:
2
𝐸𝑀𝑖 = βˆ‘π‘— βˆ‘π‘˜ 𝐸𝐹𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑙,𝑖,π‘‘π‘’π‘β„Ž,π‘˜,𝑗 Γ— πΈπΆπ‘–π‘˜ Γ— π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘“π‘’π‘’π‘™,𝑗 Γ— π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘β„Ž,π‘˜,𝑗
(1)
where
𝐸𝑀𝑖 = Combustion emissions of pollutant i [g/ J]
πΈπΉπ‘–π‘—π‘˜ =Emission factor of pollutant i for fuel j with combustion technology k [g/J]
𝐸𝐢= Inverse efficiency ratio for consumption of fuel j with combustion technology k
π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘“π‘’π‘’π‘™,𝑗= Share of fuel j out of different fuels consumed during the stage [βˆ‘jfuelj = 1]
π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘β„Ž,π‘˜,𝑗 = Share of combustion technology k out of different combustion technologies for fuel j
[βˆ‘ktechk,j = 1].
Figure 1: Life Cycle Phases
In the GREET model, combustion CO2 emission factors in g/ J of fuel throughput are calculated by using a carbon
balance approach. In this approach, the carbon contained in a process fuel burned minus the carbon contained in
combustion emissions for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and methane (CH4) is
assumed to convert to CO2. The following formula is used to calculate CO2 emissions:
𝐸𝐹𝐢02π‘—π‘˜ = [
πœŒπ‘—
𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑗
Γ— πΆπ‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘— βˆ’ (π‘‰π‘‚πΆπ‘—π‘˜ Γ— 0.85 + πΆπ‘‚π‘—π‘˜ Γ— 0.43+ 𝐢𝐻4,π‘—π‘˜ Γ— 0.75)] Γ— (44 Γ· 12) (2)
where
𝐸𝐹𝐢02π‘—π‘˜ = Emission factor for CO2 for fuel j and combustion technology k [g/J]
πœŒπ‘—
= Density of fuel j [g/l]
𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑗 = Low heating value of fuel j [J/l]
πΆπ‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘—
= Carbon ratio of fuel j
π‘‰π‘‚πΆπ‘—π‘˜ = VOC emission factor for combustion technology k, burning fuel j [g/J]
πΆπ‘‚π‘—π‘˜ = CO emission factor for combustion technology k, burning fuel j [g/J]
𝐢𝐻4,π‘—π‘˜ = CH4 emission factor for combustion technology k, burning fuel j [g/J]
0.85 = Carbon ratio of VOC
0.43 = Carbon ratio of CO
0.75 = Carbon ratio of CH4
44 = Molecular weight of CO2
12 = Molecular weight of elemental carbon.
Calculations involved in equation 2 require fuel specifications such as low heating value, fuel density, weight
ratio of carbon which are given in the GREET manual. The above formula shows the calculation method for
combustion CO2 emissions by which carbon contained in VOC, CO, and CH4 is subtracted. In the GREET model,
the indirect CO2 emissions from VOCs and CO decay in the atmosphere are considered. For example, VOCs and
Feedstock
Transportation
Feedstock
Production
Vehicle Material
Production
Maintenance
Vehicle
Distribution
Vehicle Assembly/
Manufacturing
Fuel
Production
Fuel
Distribution
Vehicle Disposal
Well to Wheel
Well to Tank Tank to Wheel
Fuel Consumption/
Operation
3
CO reside in the atmosphere for less than 10 days before decay into CO2. In contrast, Methane has a larger decay
time of about 12 years in the atmosphere. Moreover, its greenhouse effect is about 84 times stronger than that of
CO2. We emphasise that this model is general enough to include wind and solar energy and other renewable
energy sources.
3 Vehicle Life Cycle Emissions
The following section describes the carbon emissions involved in each stage of the vehicle life cycle stage.
3.1 Material Production
This process considers the materials that make up the vehicle (body and doors, brakes, chassis, interior and
exterior, tires, and wheels) and that must be extracted and processed. For the case of EVs, the material used for
battery production [e.g., lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4), lithium nickel cobalt manganese (LiNCM), lithium
manganese oxide (LiMn2O4)] has to be considered as well. Most of the studies calculate the emission of carbon
dioxide for material production based on the mass of the material and energy consumption. It also depends on two
emission factors: one for thermal energy (by fuel) and one for electricity generation. In the study by Wang et al.
(2013), the formula for calculating material production carbon emission (Cm) is given as follows:
πΆπ‘š =βˆπ‘š π‘€π‘šπ›½π‘€ (3)
where
Ξ±m = Required processing energy per mass [J/kg]
Mm = Mass of the material [kg]
𝛽𝑀 = Energy consumption factors for CO2 [g/J]
The energy consumption factors are calculated based on the following equation:
Ξ²m = (PtΞ²t+ PeΞ²e) (4)
where, Pt and Pe are the percentages of the thermal energy and electrical energy needed in material production,
respectively. During production, the steel and aluminium is considered to have noticeable carbon emission effect,
and the values of Pt and Pe are 85% and 15% for steel, and 25% and 75% for aluminium, respectively (Schucker
1996). The carbon emission due to material production of typical ICE and electrical vehicles is about 5 tons. The
value of Ξ²e depends strongly on the β€œenergy mix”. In Germany (2015), it is about 550 g/kWh.
3.2 Vehicle Assembly and Distribution
The energy consumption for assembly can be calculated by eq (3) where Mm means stands for the vehicle mass
and Ξ±m is the required energy per mass for assembling a vehicle. Typically CO2 emissions for assembly is of the
order of one ton. The distribution depends strongly on the distance and transportation mode of shipping the vehicle
to the customer. Notice that the CO2 emission for the vehicle assembly and distribution stages as well as for the
disposal are significantly lower than that for production.
3.3 Vehicle Operation
The emissions of this stage are often called β€œtank-to-wheel” emissions and considered to be the most carbon and
energy intensive phase in the life cycle of all the vehicles. The calculation of emissions for the vehicle operation
stage depends on the life time. In a study by Wang et al. (2013), the vehicle life time is considered as 300,000 km.
In another study by Aguirre et al. (2012), they considered vehicle lifetime as 180, 000 miles. They concluded that
the operation phase was attributed to 96% of ICE vehicle emissions, and 69% of EV emissions.
The emissions from EVs is dependent on electricity production. If electricity is obtained from renewable energy
sources such as wind turbines (7 g CO2e/MJ), nuclear (9 g CO2e/MJ), solar power, (30 g CO2e/MJ), and
hydropower (11 g CO2e/MJ), electric vehicles have significantly lower emissions. Generating electricity from
non-renewable energy sources such as coal (300-350 g CO2e/MJ) or natural gas (100-120 g CO2e/MJ) produces
more emissions.
The impacts of EVs are highly dependent on vehicle operation energy consumption and the electricity mix used
for charging. As examples, we compare some real-life cases considering a vehicle life time of 250,000 km, an
ICE fuel consumption of 6 l / 100 km, and a typical EV energy consumption of 20 kW/100 km. The following
five cases are estimated based on CO2 emission factor and energy mix for different countries.
4
Case 1: ICE vehicle (CO2 emission factor for gasoline: 2.38 kg/l): 250,000 Γ—6/100Γ—2.38 = 35,700 kg
Case 2: EV vehicle (China CO2 intensity 1100 g/kWh): 250,000Γ—20/100Γ—1.10=55,000 kg
Case 3: EV vehicle (USA CO2 intensity 650 g/kWh): 250,000Γ—20/100Γ—0.65=32,500 kg
Case 4: EV vehicle (Germany CO2 intensity 550 g/kWh): 250,000Γ—20/100Γ—0.55 =27,500 kg
Case 5: EV vehicle (Japan CO2 intensity 400 g/kWh): 250,000Γ—20/100Γ—0.4 =20,000 kg
Notice that the ICE vehicle of this example produces 143 g CO2 per km which is just above the current German
fleet limit of 140 g/km. From the above calculation, it is observed that EVs in China produce more CO2 emissions
compared to ordinary ICE vehicles whereas that in Germany, USA, and Japan produce less emissions. This shows
that the total EV emissions highly depend on the context of electricity mix in the region. Notice that the above
calculations do not assume the need of spare EV batteries which would tend to make the balance less favourable
for EVs.
3.4 Vehicle Maintenance and Disposal
This stage includes vehicle maintenance and repair over the vehicle life time. This phase makes a relatively small
contribution of less than 10% of the emissions during operation both in terms of material and fuel. Onat et al.
(2015) reported that vehicle maintenance phase for ICE vehicle produces 12.19 g CO2 equivalents/km and for EV
it is 8.53 g CO2 equivalents/km. Vehicle disposal is the final stage of a vehicle’s life cycle. Generally, recycling
is already being taken care of in production stage. Otherwise it will give a negative footprint.
Acknowledgements
The third author is supported by a fellowship of the Alexander Von Humboldt Research Foundation, Germany at
the Technical University of Dresden, Germany.
References
1) Lin B.: China Energy Outlook 2011, First Edition, Tsinghua University Press, 2011.
2) International Energy Agency: CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, Paris, France, 2013.
3) International Energy Agency: Global EV Outlook: Beyond one million electric cars; Paris, France, 2016.
4) Zhang, X., Xie, J., Rao, R., Liang, Y.: Policy Incentives for the Adoption of Electric Vehicles across Countries.
Sustainability 6 (2014) 8056-8078.
5) https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten ... utschland/
6) Wang, M.: GREET 1.5 – Transportation Fuel-Cycle Model. Volume 1: methodology, development, use, and results,
Technical Report ANL/ESD/TM- 22, Argonne National Laboratory, 1999.
7) Aguirre, K., Eisenhardt, L., Lim, C., Nelson, B., Norring, A., Slowik, P., Tu, N.: Lifecycle Analysis Comparison of a
Battery Electric Vehicle and a Conventional Gasoline Vehicle, University of California, Los Angeles, 2012.
8) Wang, D., Zamel, N., Jiao, K., Zhou, Y., Yu, S., Du, Q., Yin, Y.: Life Cycle Analysis of Internal Combustion Engine,
Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles for China. Energy 59 (2013) 402-412.
9) Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O.: Conventional, Hybrid, Plug-in Hybrid or Electric Vehicles? State-based Comparative
Carbon and Energy Footprint Analysis in the United States. Applied Energy 150 (2015) 36-49.


That's just the Abstract, not the full article! Should have put you off the subject... But in the meantime, although I hate over-simplification of a complex issue, this very short video provides a broadbrush precis...

Last edited by daveuprite on Sat May 11, 2019 2:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

daveuprite
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:47 pm
Location: Limousin France
Has thanked: 859 times
Been thanked: 1100 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by daveuprite » Sat May 11, 2019 1:28 pm

This LCA done for the City of Vancouver is an easier read....

https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/fi ... ukreja.pdf

...if you're still interested! :D

daveuprite
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:47 pm
Location: Limousin France
Has thanked: 859 times
Been thanked: 1100 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by daveuprite » Sat May 11, 2019 1:43 pm

And finally, because I'm nodding off myself (let alone how you must be feeling)...

Here's a neat way of showing how the energy mix in a particular grid (i.e. the proportion of a country's energy that comes from various renewable or non-renewable sources) makes a big difference to the level of emissions from EVs. But even in Poland, where electricity is currently still heavily coal dependent, an EV will still produce usefully less emissions than a diesel.


Image

Tonibe63
Posts: 2126
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:05 pm
Has thanked: 308 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by Tonibe63 » Sat May 11, 2019 2:06 pm

Thanks for the video and graph Dave ;) :lol: .
Open your eyes and you see what is in front of you but open your mind and you see a whole new World

MotoCP
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:43 pm
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by MotoCP » Sat May 11, 2019 3:36 pm

I read the following book nearly 10 years ago to try and make sense of all the rhetoric regarding the effectiveness of renewable energy to slow down global warming as appose to being dependant on ever decreasing fossil fuels.

David Mackay provides easy to understand, compelling evidence as to the correlation between rising temperatures and the spike in CO2 levels during the industrial revolution.

He frankly appraises the various methods of producing renewable energy, their limitations, reliability, and difficulty in storing energy, leading to the importance of hydroelectric power stations to feed the sudden massive spike in power demand that the national grid has to provide to us, a population of habit. (all turning the kettle on around the same time in a morning, during TV adverts and after the live broadcast of world cup football games etc).

Although it was actually written in 2008, I would recommend this book to anyone, especially those who still believe that global warming is just a natural variation in the earths climate (Trump should read it!).


User avatar
WIBO
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:37 pm
Location: French PyrΓ©nΓ©es
Has thanked: 538 times
Been thanked: 591 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by WIBO » Sat May 11, 2019 8:20 pm

Just had this link pinged to me......German study about electric cars producing more C02 than diesel.....

https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/19/new ... -more-co2/





.
Will It Buff Out?









The Suit:What would you consider to be your greatest weakness?

Me: Honesty.

The Suit: Honesty? I don't think honesty could be construed as a weakness.

Me: I don't give a f**k what you think.

Nigel
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:32 pm
Has thanked: 138 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by Nigel » Sat May 11, 2019 8:42 pm

And we know how reliable the figures are for German diesel cars :roll:

daveuprite
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:47 pm
Location: Limousin France
Has thanked: 859 times
Been thanked: 1100 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by daveuprite » Sat May 11, 2019 9:20 pm

WIBO wrote: ↑
Sat May 11, 2019 8:20 pm
Just had this link pinged to me......German study about electric cars producing more C02 than diesel.....

https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/19/new ... -more-co2/
Be very careful. NoTricksZone is a 'climate skeptic blog' which aims to discredit and cast doubt on climate change research, as part of its pro-fossil fuel agenda. It is part funded by the Koch brothers, which says it all really.

'Findings' presented by No Tricks Zone have frequently been fact checked and tested, and found to be 'crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors' (Snopes.com June 2019). It is often the case that when the original authors of articles misrepresented in NoTricksZone are asked about how their work has been presented they utterly refute the conclusions, which are sometimes completely opposite to what they actually found. NTZ is notorious for this, along with many other contrarian climate change denial sites supported by the fossil fuel and/or alt-right establishment.

Sadly its readers rarely test the truth of the claims in NoTricksZone, or whether the research they publicise is genuine or totally misrepresented. They are fed what they want to see, which fits with their world view.

This is the battlefield that genuine climate change scientists have to negotiate every day while a huge industry, backed by corporations and super-rich self-interested parties right up to Donald Trump himself, desperately conspire to discredit them.

If you are ever in any doubt about anything you read concerning climate change / emissions etc, or if it looks to fly in the face of the vast majority of scientific research, don't trust third party publications/web-sites. Simply go to the source material and read the actual research for yourself to establish the veracity of the claims/counter-claims.

Richard Simpson Mark II
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 9:03 pm
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 475 times

Re: The right to repair

Post by Richard Simpson Mark II » Sat May 11, 2019 9:54 pm

WIBO wrote: ↑
Sat May 11, 2019 8:20 pm
Just had this link pinged to me......German study about electric cars producing more C02 than diesel.....

https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/19/new ... -more-co2/





.
My understanding of that study is that it pitches all the emissions associated with the electric car, including its manufacture and the electric generation mix in Germany where coal-powered stations are still burning lignite (brown coal, high sulphur content) are making an increasing contribution because of nuclear power nein danke, against the tail pipe emissions of the diesel car, taking no account of the carbon produced during the manufacture of the car or the extraction and refining of the fuel.

Truth is, diesel is the most convenient fuel because of its massive energy density, but I suspect we will see its slow death as a car fuel as battery tech improves.

Post Reply

Return to β€œTHE PUB”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlanHolt, aliwakeskate, Teflon Jnr and 88 guests