EVs are the future and diesels are doomed aren't they?

Isambard

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/opinion/354505/scrap-your-hybrid-diesel-campaign-might-just-happen?fbclid=IwAR0QA7K7XKZuS619IBlubWyFEOTc6WgUKDsnOyQ_iquUAbkbNufn-OXHito

A ‘scrap your hybrid car for a diesel’ scheme might just happen
Mike Rutherford says a recent study shows electrified cars aren't necessarily the greenest

What now, another Government-sponsored scrappage scheme? Maybe. But this time around perhaps owners of cars like the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, which got a poor Green NCAP score, will be incentivised to switch to ‘cleaner’ pure-diesel Skoda Octavias, with higher Clean Air Index scores. Don’t laugh. Or cry. In increasingly bonkers Blighty, a ‘Scrap Your Hybrid for a Diesel’ campaign might just happen.

.

Isambard

well not a definite no, but I assume dozens of people will come along and say it is no. On fact it means it isn't as cut and dried as some will tell you.

There's something illogical about Journalists having an unwritten rule.

my Journalist daughter tells me it's a bit of an in joke "We have an almost-ban on question marks in headlines as we should be giving the answer rather than asking the question (most of the time!)"

liamog

The source data for the article
https://www.greenncap.com/assessments/

Not surprisingly the EVs are on top, and diesel's do better than petrol cars in fuel efficiency. Is that really news to anyone?

The only particularly interesting thing on their assessment is how low they rate the Outlander PHEV vs the Prius and Niro PHEVs that are rated much better.

quokula

There is literally one electric car in that list, and it came in first. Of course fossil fuel engined cars will make it into the top 3 when there are only 2 non-fossil fuel cars tested. It doesn't surprise me that the "journalist" writing the article chose to avoid linking to the source data.

liamog

Did you see which two cars came top in 2020?
Kona Electric and Renault Zoe.

Must of been a slow news day at Autoexpress, I feel journalism has really dropped in quality in recent years.

Leonard Hofstadter

Diesel is on the way out, whether that is a good thing is a totally different question to the fact they are definitely coming towards the end in private cars. They have significant benefits in CO2, CO and thermal efficiency compared to petrol engines (at the expense of NOx, PM and PN of course, but remember that direct injection petrols are worse than traditional indirect injection petrols for these - indirect injection produces no PM or PN whatsoever).

I've never liked the inferior refinement, poorer throttle response, non-linear power delivery, noise or lack of revs compared to an equivalent petrol, so I'd be lying if I said I was sad about this, but nonetheless for many people they still make the most sense, the superior fuel consumption and higher torque outputs are certainly very useful things, and to use a BMW phrase, I believe in the 'power of choice' and people should buy what suits them best. Nonetheless I think the die has been cast, and manufacturers are basically not developing them at all now. They were only ever popular in Europe, and if combustion engines are going to survive in cars beyond 2030, it makes sense to concentrate on petrol, as they are popular worldwide.

I suspect petrol, or perhaps more accurately, Otto/Atkinson cycle powered cars will be around a lot longer than most people expect. There's no reason not to keep Otto-Atkinson cycle internal combustion engines in production (not to mention the existing car fleet on the road) if synthetic fuels prove to be capable of doing what Porsche and their proponents say they're capable of doing in terms of reducing CO2 emissions - and all without replacing a single vehicle in the existing car fleet.

80sDiesel

Nissan has developed a 50% thermal efficiency engine which improves fuel consumption by 25%. This mated to their new E-Power drivetrain will better that % and also giving an EV experience without the cost of a large battery.

Padre_Pio

80sDiesel wrote: »

Nissan has developed a 50% thermal efficiency engine which improves fuel consumption by 25%. This mated to their new E-Power drivetrain will better that % and also giving an EV experience without the cost of a large battery.

First, 50% isn't all that great.
Second, what car is this engine going into?
I ask because this is just a concept engine. There's no real details beyond what you posted.
If it takes 5 years to commercialise this, then they may have missed the boat.

Engines are cheap because of economy of scale. Batteries are getting very cheap and will continue to do so. Battery cost is down 13% since 2019, we'll be tripping over battery packs in a few years.

80sDiesel

80sDiesel wrote: »

Nissan has developed a 50% thermal efficiency engine which improves fuel consumption by 25%. This mated to their new E-Power drivetrain will better that % and also giving an EV experience without the cost of a large battery.

The technology they've employed is interesting but not the particular engine they are using. It is too complicated. If they were using a simple naturally aspirated triple with a simple head where all variable timing components are removed running at a fixed RPM using a non-standard combustion cycle like ellison then I'd be more interested. The engine I'm more interested in from their stable is the 999cc one used in the Micra/Twingo/Clio/Sandero with all the complicated bits removed. I still think an Electric car with smallish battery and fast charging is a better solution.

Leonard Hofstadter

Padre_Pio wrote: »

First, 50% isn't all that great.
Second, what car is this engine going into?
I ask because this is just a concept engine. There's no real details beyond what you posted.
If it takes 5 years to commercialise this, then they may have missed the boat.

Engines are cheap because of economy of scale. Batteries are getting very cheap and will continue to do so. Battery cost is down 13% since 2019, we'll be tripping over battery packs in a few years.

It's 20-25% better than the current petrol engines, so hardly an insignificant improvement.

Having said that, now that I've read up on it, the reason it's so efficient is because it acts more like a generator and it will just run at a constant speed, so it's not quite the advance it could have been. If it could be used just like an existing petrol engine then it would represent a real breakthrough for petrol engines and certainly extend their lifespan in new cars, and it would take longer for EVs to produce a net benefit to the planet.

Formula 1 engines are 50% thermally efficient so it's definitely possible but obviously those engines are super expensive.

80sDiesel

It took 50 years to get from 30% to 40% thermal efficiency,so given that ,it’s a pretty big leap.

Padre_Pio

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

It's 20-25% better than the current petrol engines, so hardly an insignificant improvement.

Having said that, now that I've read up on it, the reason it's so efficient is because it acts more like a generator and it will just run at a constant speed, so it's not quite the advance it could have been. If it could be used just like an existing petrol engine then it would represent a real breakthrough for petrol engines and certainly extend their lifespan in new cars, and it would take longer for EVs to produce a net benefit to the planet.

Formula 1 engines are 50% thermally efficient so it's definitely possible but obviously those engines are super expensive.

Not disagreeing that it's a step, but at the end of the day, you're running a PHEV, so all the problems of ICE and all the problems of EV.

50% is good for a petrol, but EV are up at 90% efficient with a cheaper fuel source.
EVs are still a tiny minority on the road, but the yearly improvement are astounding. You're not going to get that anymore with ICE.

Montage of Feck

I've got to get my myself a gas gussling monster before it's too late!

josip

Yaaay, happy owner of the 3rd car on that list.
Teaching my son to drive it over the next few years before we get an EV so that he can tell his kids and grand kids about driving a manual shift.

rn

The 00's were all about global warming and carbon. Hence diesel won. Now it's about clean air. Neither petrol or diesel has a future, especially in cities. Even synthetic fuels will only delay what we need to do for improving air pollution at local level.

Hydrogen is interesting, it solves the refueling problem and the emissions problem. But production and provision of infrastructure is prohibitive. Oil infrastructure has been built over 100 years. Hydrogen needs a similar infrastructure, but it needs to get to a critical mass much, much faster.

Electricity has the infrastructure problem and emissions problem sorted. We understand it very well. We've to generate lots of it, but can do it greener and where we can't do it greener, we can put that production infrastructure far away from urban centres with knock on benefits for air quality.

Which one will win is based on whether electric can overcome the charging problem or if hydrogen can roll out fast enough. The early money is completely on electricity for private family transport.

Hydrogen might take commercial transport.

biko

Tbh, EVs are still the future and diesels are still doomed.

Isambard

biko wrote: »

Tbh, EVs are still the future and diesels are still doomed.

may well be the case but I can't see the resources being available to equip the entire planet with EVs in their current form.

biko

Yes, I think the EVs will really only be implemented in large scale in western cities for a start.

No one really expects EVs to be used by any of the world's 1.3 billion people who live without access to power. But they are too poor to affect the climate anyway.

Padre_Pio

Isambard wrote: »

may well be the case but I can't see the resources being available to equip the entire planet with EVs in their current form.

What are the resource constraints?

Isambard

Isambard wrote: »

may well be the case but I can't see the resources being available to equip the entire planet with EVs in their current form.

What about an Island less than 500km x 300km ?:D

Eric Cartman

BrownFinger wrote: »

What about an Island less than 500km x 300km ?:D

with an electricity grid that features almost no storage capacity and is already at breaking point for on demand power.

Padre_Pio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

with an electricity grid that features almost no storage capacity and is already at breaking point for on demand power.

Since when is the grid at breaking point? Hardly any country has storage capacity.

Ireland's grid can handle plenty of EVs. We're a net exporter of electricity.

ESB spokesman to Irish times 2018 “As a rule of thumb, every 100,000 EVs would be expected to increase annual electricity demand by approximately 1 per cent. That is based on each EV driving approximately 17,000km per year”
“EVs use far less energy than their petrol or diesel equivalents, so it is a lower burden than most expect. Also, Ireland has a modern, and well-managed electricity distribution network with good capacity levels across the country. In addition, smart charging and metering can help customers choose to charge at off-peak times.”

liamog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

with an electricity grid that features almost no storage capacity and is already at breaking point for on demand power.

There's about 2.1 GWh of storage in the process of being delivered in Ireland with some already online.

Do you have any idea how much electricity is required to electrify the Irish private passenger car fleet? Given you think it won't work I'd be interested to see what number you calculated.

Eric Cartman

liamog wrote: »

There's about 2.1 GWh of storage in the process of being delivered in Ireland with some already online.

Do you have any idea how much electricity is required to electrify the Irish private passenger car fleet? Given you think it won't work I'd be interested to see what number you calculated.

where is this storage coming from ?

storage isn't hugely important now but as we're decommissioning many fossil fuel plants to be replaced with renewables, storage becomes more important. We have 2.13 million registered passenger cars here, assuming the eventual plan is to electrify the entire national fleet and 100,000 cars = 1% electricity demand interest, its not out there to say that we're looking into a 21% increase in electricity demand over the next 20 years just from passenger cars. Beyond that we have every new house using A2W heat pumps for energy which will also increase demand , population increases, more houses etc..

we're shutting down plants now but will need at minimum 30% extra capacity in a few short decades,

Eric Cartman

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I am sure the Irish government has a well though out plan for the future for this. They are well known for being visionaries....

I can already see the minister for finance in 15 years giving an announcement that we have to tax EV's at 500 euro a year and electricity is now 28c kw/h to pay for 'vital infrastructure' needed to support our EV nation.

liamog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I can already see the minister for finance in 15 years giving an announcement that we have to tax EV's at 500 euro a year and electricity is now 28c kw/h to pay for 'vital infrastructure' needed to support our EV nation.

Generally speaking as you increase the demand for something the supply increases and the costs goes down. Electricity generators in Ireland aren't going to be complaining that an extra market opens up to them. We've about 20 years of a well forecasted increase in demand, plenty of time for private operators to invest in building new supply.

rn

It's hard to see the planet having the resources to equip the entire planet with ICE based transport for very long either...

It's the poorer parts of the world that suffer most from poor air quality.

Isambard

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What are the resource constraints?

the materiaals to make all those batteries I would have thought

kaahooters

rn wrote: »

It's hard to see the planet having the resources to equip the entire planet with ICE based transport for very long either...

It's the poorer parts of the world that suffer most from poor air quality.

you do understand that we all have the same air?

liamog

kaahooters wrote: »

you do understand that we all have the same air?

There's a big difference between greenhouse gas emissions and localised pollutants. The air you breathe in the Dublin Port tunnel is much worse for you than the air you breath at the 15 Acres in Phoenix Park.

Padre_Pio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

we're shutting down plants now but will need at minimum 30% extra capacity in a few short decades,

Not a problem.

Just build more renewables and gas. Plenty of capacity right now, plenty of time to build power generators and plenty of opportunities for people to become microproducers themselves.

30 years is a long time. For all we know private car ownership won't exist.

Isambard wrote: »

the materiaals to make all those batteries I would have thought

specifically what materials are we running out of?

rn

kaahooters wrote: »

you do understand that we all have the same air?

We actually don't. Many pollutants stay local. And we didn't understand that in the 00's. We've always thought of it in terms of global warming and sure little old Ireland can't really change that. But now we know more about stuff like particulate matter and the immediate impact on health locally to where the pollution gets produced.

We're very fortunate in Ireland. We get a lot of wind and beautiful clean air from the Atlantic. Now we do a good job filling it with gunk from transport and our turf fires before it moves on towards UK and Europe.

But India, parts of China and central Europe suffer terrible local air quality. It's not all caused by transport, but if transport could be cleaned up a lot of their air quality problems would be improved.

It's one of the fundamental improvements electric cars can bring, even if we've to use fossil fuel to produce power. You'd get no reduction in green house gasses for the global planet, but you'd have a much nicer environment in Dublin City.

Mules

I have a diesel and if you stand behind it while it's running, the fumes are poisonous compared to a petrol car. It's very economical though.

rn

Mules wrote: »

I have a diesel and if you stand behind it while it's running, the fumes are poisonous compared to a petrol car. It's very economical though.

I understand both are atrocious for your health. It's like comparing light cigarettes to a strong brand.

Diesel is better for global warming alright.

EV may be the future, but battery cars are surely not, in my opinion

Tiny engine to get to scalextric roads is the future

grogi

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I recall an journalism unwritten rule that if a headline (or in your case a post) has a question mark at the end it normally means that the answer is no (or its misleading).

Betteridge's law of headlines

L1011

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I recall an journalism unwritten rule that if a headline (or in your case a post) has a question mark at the end it normally means that the answer is no (or its misleading).

Its very written - Betteridges Law.

If a headline ends in ?, the answer is no. You'll get the odd exception but otherwise its solid.

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

EV may be the future, but battery cars are surely not, in my opinion

Tiny engine to get to scalextric roads is the future

Bit of hassle getting the cars back on track/road at the corners though...

Larbre34

As with everything in history, whatever is most economical to the masses will win out.

Whether thats EV, hybrid, fuel cell or coal burning stove, who knows, but my guess is it'll be a combination of all of the above for a long time to come. Diesel certainly has a long term future in plant and machinery, marine, the military and so on.

The Outlander is a rubbish example anyway, its hardly cutting edge.

quokula

Larbre34 wrote: »

As with everything in history, whatever is most economical to the masses will win out.

Whether thats EV, hybrid, fuel cell or coal burning stove, who knows, but my guess is it'll be a combination of all of the above for a long time to come. Diesel certainly has a long term future in plant and machinery, marine, the military and so on.

The Outlander is a rubbish example anyway, its hardly cutting edge.

Lots of things in history that were more economical got phased out when we realised the downsides, from asbestos to lead paint. Fossil fuel based mass transportation is not sustainable due to both the long term impact on the climate and the immediate impact on local air quality and respiratory illness. It will eventually be forced out by necessary regulation, regardless of any other factor.

Manufacturers know this and are ramping up EV production in preparation, and we are seeing rapid improvements in the technology and the costs as economies of scale kick in. Other alternatives like hydrogen fuel cells are nowhere near viability to compete with battery EVs right now and that doesn't look like changing any time soon, but the tech may find a home in heavy duty haulage and shipping.

Larbre34

You'll notice asbestos and lead based paint were not phased out without an economical alternative being available.

Padre_Pio

Larbre34 wrote: »

You'll notice asbestos and lead based paint were not phased out without an economical alternative being available.

Governments will use a series of carrots and sticks to get people to convert to EVs and renewable energy. It's already happening now with motor tax rates and SEAI grants.

Vicxas

Maybe not exclusively EV cars. But id say the likes of hydrogen fuel will kick off if it can be made commercially viable.

beauf

Vicxas wrote: »

Maybe not exclusively EV cars. But id say the likes of hydrogen fuel will kick off if it can be made commercially viable.

Won't happen without the infrastructure.

Whereas electric we already have a slow charging infrastructure with a the 3 pin plug. That's obviously inadequate but it's still a lot easier than a hydrogen infrastructure.

Captain slow from top gear has been running a hydrogen car for a while. Just getting rid of it now. In the whole of the UK there's only something like 11 stations to fill up.

Akrasia

Eric Cartman wrote: »

where is this storage coming from ?

storage isn't hugely important now but as we're decommissioning many fossil fuel plants to be replaced with renewables, storage becomes more important. We have 2.13 million registered passenger cars here, assuming the eventual plan is to electrify the entire national fleet and 100,000 cars = 1% electricity demand interest, its not out there to say that we're looking into a 21% increase in electricity demand over the next 20 years just from passenger cars. Beyond that we have every new house using A2W heat pumps for energy which will also increase demand , population increases, more houses etc..

we're shutting down plants now but will need at minimum 30% extra capacity in a few short decades,

Every new house, factory, and office building will also have solar panels or another form of renewable energy generation to supplement their energy demand, and this means they will also have batteries and inverters so they will also contribute to the energy storage problem

Akrasia

beauf wrote: »

Bit of hassle getting the cars back on track/road at the corners though...

And there would be tiny springs everywhere

Padre_Pio

beauf wrote: »

Whereas electric we already have a slow charging infrastructure with a the 3 pin plug. That's obviously inadequate but it's still a lot easier than a hydrogen infrastructure.

True, and the SEAI grant makes it cheap to install a home charger.