Can the Grid take it?
I posted a couple of visions of garages of the future recently.
The first vision was of an internet café style ‘park and surf while you charge’ kind of thing. Looked cool, not a bad first stab, but on further examination - it wasn’t it.
The second vision is an abandoned, moss grown relic. The gist of this vision is that with modern battery ranges of 200 miles + and given that 99.5% of car journeys are less than 100 miles – all we need is some destination charging, in supermarket and public car parks, motorway services, that kind of stuff for long journeys and when we get caught short - and for the most part we’ll be able to plug in at home. We won’t need garages.
This raises the very important question – can the grid take it? Can we switch the entire energy consumption of UK cars – from petrol stations to the grid? By the way the combined power output of the UK car fleet is bigger than the total power output of the grid. So it might be a problem.
We crunched some numbers and came up with this:
In the UK we drive 250 Billion miles in our cars every year…! Seriously.
It’s reasonable to assume that an electric car can do 5,000 miles on one MWh of electricity.
Therefore we would need an additional 50TWh of electricity annually, to power the UK’s cars – if they were all electric.
In 2006 total demand on the grid was 404TWh, so the extra 50TWh we’d need would amount to a 12% increase in grid delivered power. Just 12%. That’s actually four years of annual UK demand growth to give it some perspective. Not so much.
It would take very roughly 10,000 of today’s turbines to produce this 50 TWh and so power all our cars. It’ll be less then that by the time it happened of course because turbines keep getting bigger and more efficient.
In the process we’d save 69 Million tonnes of CO2 per year – that’s 60% of UK road transport emissions and 12% of total UK CO2 emissions. No small achievement.
I was pretty staggered by the results. There are after all nearly 30 million cars in the UK (that’s more cars than homes by the way, about 25% more) and we drive that crazy 250 Billion miles – there was a good chance, I thought, that the extra power demand would be more than the grid could cope with. But an extra 12% is well within the realms of the possible.
It’s worth bearing in mind that most car charging will probably be overnight, the time of lowest grid demand, and therefore we can probably deliver this extra 12% volume without a need to increase the actual capacity of the grid. And such a large overnight load could result in a considerable smoothing of the peaks and troughs of demand on the grid and in the process make the grid more efficient cost and CO2 wise.
And an electric car fleet for the UK could also help with the smoothing of intermittent renewables like wind energy, because for the most part car charging will be non-critical loads, non-time sensitive that is. 30 Million cars could act like vast distributed energy storage system, able to take power when the wind blows and able to manage without when it doesn’t. It could even give power back to the grid at times of need.
All interesting stuff. But one thing is clear - the idea that we could all drive electric cars, powered by existing infrastructure - the grid, looks very (very) doable.
And the alternative vision, of the oil companies – building a new hydrogen infrastructure and for us all to keep on visiting their garages to fill our cars up (for which we’d need three times as many windmills and three times as much additional electricity to achieve the same thing by the way) - is looking more like our second vision of garages of the future - a moss grown relic, though not yet abandoned… 
Best get busy building those wind turbines
I look forward to hearing more news on your electric car project. Might even see you driving around Stroud in your electric car once its finished.
Comment by Simon — September 5, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Comment by Ted Marynicz — September 5, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Although the report refers to plug-in hybrids, seeing as it states that 70% of the existing U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet could be powered by existing off-peak electricity, and assumes more power-hungry vehicles, that should still be quite a lot of pure EVs.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/pdfs/phev/pratt_phev_workshop.pdf
Comment by Julian — September 6, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Comment by James — September 7, 2008 @ 10:54 am
So why is this so hard? Are we just making a meal out of a mole hill or what?! .. I’m sure our economy would be considerably more stable if we shook our reliance on this finite, largely imported resource.
Comment by Chris — September 10, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
Just seen this post on the Shelby supercars website. What the hell do they mean “several years between charge”!!
Shrouded in mystery and secrecy, SSC has announced plans to unveil the next historical milestone – the Ultimate Aero EV (Electric Vehicle), the first 100% Green Supercar to achieve speeds never before seen. Engineering details are yet undisclosed while development continues at an uninterrupted pace. Despite months of speculation, SSC expects to roll out its first prototype in February 2009.
“I think we can do it faster, leaner and cleaner than any other manufacturer” says Jerod Shelby, SSC Founder.
Unlike other manufacturers’ models slated for delivery in the next decade, Shelby’s latest brainchild expects to be delivered as early as fourth quarter 2009. Other automakers have sacrificed aesthetics and performance in exchange for hybrid power plants, but the Ultimate Aero EV will deliver a pollution-free, engineering marvel with an exotic Supercar exterior. The drive train under development will feature a revolutionary power source allowing for extended time between charging intervals with the possibility of SERVERAL YEARS BETWEEN CHARGING. Powered by a 500 horsepower electric motor, the Ultimate Aero EV will have true supercar performance. Additionally, SSC is exploring the potential of a twin 500 horsepower electric power plant producing 1,000 horsepower in a 2 or 4 wheel drive configuration.
Bring on the electric ubercar is what I say.
Comment by Justin Noe — September 12, 2008 @ 12:08 am
Thanks Justin, this is interesting stuff indeed. Lot’s of big talk in there, and even a good fraction of that delivered would be a good thing. He can’t surely mean though a pure EV charged once every few years, can he? That would be incredible. The energy density of the batteries or storage medium would have to be orders or magnitude greater than today’s and thus (way) greater than that of fossil fuels - and beating fossil fuels in those terms would be an amazing achievement. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Cheers.
Comment by dale — September 12, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
You might have added that we’ll need less than what we use now, because the amount we travel now is ridiculous for lots of reasons, many of them connected to, but not directly environmental damage (ie, the ridiculousness of transporting food all round the country to be packaged in plastic, and then the ridiculousness of buying food from halfway around teh country/world, when it’s growing nearby)
so theorectically, less than 12%…
However (and I really can’t stress this enough):
You still have to build the cars to replace all the ones we have now
You still have to get rid of all the cars we have now
You’re supporting an industry tied to the enormously environmentally damaging road and tire industries (and the not particularly lovely insurance industry)
You’re supporting, rather than challenging the car-culture which is so damaging to our society in so many ways
eg. greater distances, reduced localism, communities destroyed by traffic and cars, deaths and disabilities, rampant individualism/roadrage mentality
And you’re giving macho nobs who couldn’t give a monkey’s about the environment the opportunity to greenwash themselves and make out like they’re nice guys…
And even if it wasn’t for all this and electric cars were a solution, we’ve got 8 years to turn around our emissions, and probably less till peak oil is really biting, and the idea of new industries and manafacturing for a new infrastructure on this scale being remotely viable (and a priority compared to heating, lighting and food and essential needs support from electricity) is a joke.
Here are three suggestions for better solutions we should be prioritising on transport:
- travelling less and reducing the need to travel
-using public transport and developing it to increase its efficiency, usefulness and environmental credentials
-moving to bikes and walking wherever possible, and developing these modes to be more useful and attractive
(electric help those areas is great, by the way)
Why not spend energy making bikes and public transport attractive - it’s really not that hard a task. It’s not like riding a bike isn’t fun as well…
And lots of people don’t think cars are fun - I for one think they’re generally a pain in the arse. I manage to live quite happily without one and so did the vast majority of the UK until a little over 50 years ago… So does quite a large portion still.. not to mention the rest of the world.
It saddens me that so many passionate environmentalists get so distracted by dangerous techno-fixes just cos they’re shiny
we’re supposed to be interested in protecting the environment, not just protecting our stupid opulent and unsustainable lifestyle choices
electric cars are destined to remain a lifestyle accessory for the rich. for the rest of us, they’re just a (dangerous) distraction
Comment by Peter Pannier — September 12, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
btw great blog
Comment by mad architect — September 15, 2008 @ 3:02 am
Hi Peter Pannier, the thing you can’t stress enough - that we will need to build 30 million new cars - is actually a misunderstanding on your part. The car that we are building is, or rather was, an existing petrol car on the road. We’ve taken out all its internal combustion bits and pieces (which we’re going to make a sculpture with) and ‘electrified’ it. It’s a retro-fit model. Taking cars off the road and putting them back on in a brand new guise.
It’s silly to say I’m supporting the car industry and the car culture - this car challenges both, and radically. Though not admittedly as radically as if we told people they’d all have to get a bike. But we need to offer realistic change, or nothing will happen.
Us all driving electric cars, charged from the gird and from our own micro generators - would be a revolution, not just in car use but in how we see the world, how we think. The spins-offs to the rest of the sustainability agenda would follow.
I agree with your three suggestion too, and they’re not at odds with the work we’re doing here - not in my opinion.
The danger here though is not in the distraction of electric cars as you say - it’s more dangerous in my opinion to seek to demonise anybody that has a car and might want to drive one in the future, more dangerous to offer a vision of the future that for many many people will be simply too bleak to contemplate. Lentils, sandals and bikes. I love them all, but you risk alienating the people that we need on board (the mass of people) with this slightly rabid world view.
Cheers.
Comment by dale — September 15, 2008 @ 8:30 am
This argument has some truth, sure, but it’s funny hearing it from you because it so often comes from people totally opposed to the environmental agenda. I sort of agree with your sentiment (yes, we have to make solutions appeal in the mainstream, and that’s a hard battle), but you seem far more rabid than me… you think we couldn’t possibly promote bikes - it seems? Actually I would guess that far more emissions have been saved so far in the last few years by getting more people on bikes than have been by getting them into electric cars. Yes, this might change soon but… The success of BikeIt initiatives in schools, getting huge increases in kids cycling to school (because they want to, they don’t seem all that keen on going in a car, I doubt it would make much difference if it was electric), Sustrans in winning the public vote for those millions lately, the Velib bike hire scheme in Paris, the rise of cycling in London and the commitment of the mayors to it there… our experiences with Bicycology, all suggest that bikes can be mainstreamed, theat they are attractive to the mass of people (actually, the best evidence for this is to look at the number of car adverts that use bikes to sell the cars!)
You seem a bit confused about car culture too. You agreed with my comment about reclaiming the streets from traffic etc, and I won’t go over my points about the ways that cars are bad not just because of their emissions… but you argue it’s a huge revolution to move to electric cars, one of mindset, somehow. It isn’t really. You don’t seem to understand the difference between social change, and technical change… a social revolution, and a technological revolution.
So yes, your ideas would be revolutionary technically, technologically, infrastructure wise… a la the IT revolution
But they won’t do much to change our mindset about how we travel, how far we travel, how we relate to the world (as in, a car separates you from the outside world - puts you in a bubble - in a way bikes don’t). They just say that all that stuff is fine, and we should keep going down that road… (ok, i’m fine with that pun…)
You are supporting the car industry by suggesting that it can be reformed, you are thus making people think cars less planet-damaging than they are… “it’s ok, soon it won’t be a problem when electric cars come along” - faith placed in technology that may never arrive (you’re optimistic, fair enough, but like i’ve said, it seems incredibly amibitious technology wise). Plus the tire industry etc as I mentioned… (and the fact that if anyone can make this happen infrastructure wise it will be the car and oil companies, who will then be able to pretend they had our best interests at heart all along, even though they bear a lot of responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in)
But it’s funny that you even claim it’s such a revolution of mindset. If it is, it will surely be just as unpalatable as bike, sandals, lentils etc… (and I think even fancy high performance electric cars will still be tainted with ‘hippy’ for a while, just because of people’s prejudices, and the way damaging industries promote them. And they will if they’re selling petrol cars and you’re trying to get their market share)
You try to suggest that other ways of transporting ourselves than cars would form a “vision of the future that for many many people will be simply too bleak to comtemplate”. I think you are really really wrong here. I think you are drastically over-estimating how many people actually want to be driving everywhere/putting up with others doing so. If you look in the local papers around the country traffic congestion is usually a major complaint. People are sick of cars spoiling their local environments much more directly than they do the global environment. Electric cars can’t solve this problem… They don’t solve the problem of things being further away than they used to be because the world is being built for cars, not people. They don’t question the fact that most commuting is a ridulous ‘people swap’ with some people going one way, while others go another… And they can’t!
You say my proposals aren’t at odds with yours, but it’s about priorities, you’ve picked the wrong one… the ‘opportunity cost’ is picking the right one! (like retro-fitting a double decker bus with fantastic electric technology, and working on how public transport can be make more attractive to the mass of people)
You may think you’re going to attract the mass of public with your fancy car, but you will put off many many people, for whom such things appear what they are - middle class toys to reduce guilt and look good, not environmental solutions for the mass of people. Need I remind you that many of the ‘mass’ of people don’t own cars because the already can’t afford them, or are starting to struggle with rising costs (the price of travel is a huge issue in this country, right?) To which you are proposing even more expensive ones. You also ignore the fact that many of the ‘mass’ of people are put off by such macho interests as fast cars - just cos you like em doesn’t mean everyone else does… surely you realise this? Clarkson isn’t exactly everyone’s favourite TV celebrity is he? Fast Cars aren’t uncontroversial? it’s not just the carbon impact that’s the reason for this…
Anyway, I could go on (as you’ve probably guessed), I’m sure you could too.
Ultimately, it comes down to a simple problem…
You think I have a “slightly rabid world view” so you can dismiss me. Fine. Good to know that the guy at the top of one of the country’s (world’s?) most significant green companies enjoys dismissing genuine greenies…
I think you have a similar problem (a “slightly rabid worldview”), but you’re in charge of a large green company that forms people’s opinions far more than I can, and I think you need tomuch more seriously consider the impacts of projects such as this, and providing wind power for lotus to produce fossil-fueled cars, and wind power for sainsbury’s (whose model of food distribution is not going to survive into the future, and I would argue are clearly using you for greenwash, they have no genuine commitment to the environment), etc etc
A bit of mainstreaming is fine, but too much, and you’re just greenwashing the status quo. You might get carbon reductions here and there, but you won’t get the real change we need.
Happy considering…!
Comment by Peter Pannier — September 15, 2008 @ 9:55 am
I actually agree with all of your points. We need to travel less, we need to consume less (particularly when it comes to cars & unethical fossil fuels) and we need to improve public transport. But what you seem to be talking about is a total revolution of how we survive from day to day - our transport, our economy, our food supply chains, our communications, our govt., our consumption & leisure activities. Bicycles & public transport will never supply all our needs in our modern economy & way of life. You can’t run regular (mostly empty) transport links through more sparsely populated suburban and rural areas. Medium to Long distance public transport will always be particularly expensive and inconvenient. Some people will always need to travel at an instants notice on routes that aren’t serviced by public transport, with a few detours along the way! For some people it’s part of their job to travel in all manner of different directions and for some it’s part of their family life. I have an auntie with 4 kids, .. 1 in a primary school, 2 in a senior school, and 1 in a school for special needs. Public transport & bicycles won’t help her.
Your (good) suggestion in my mind will only get us 50% of the way there. There’s 6 billion of us on earth and we’re past the point where just living on less will cut it. Add to that, half of this battle is about winning support, but you won’t win the necessary level of support for action on climate change if you’re only solution is to camp in a hut and survive on only egg, cheese & milk from the corner shop. (And lentils!! Can’t forget the lentils!) This picture is inhibitive to the ‘green brand’. It’s too easy for the capitalists on Fox News to break down and humiliate!! (See You Tube clips to understand what I mean!) I admire your ideals though, and if you really manage to live by what you believe, I admire you even more.
Comment by Chris — September 15, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Good to have those figures.
Are you familiar with the Chinese company BYD? They currently produce 30 per cent of the worlds mobile phone batteries, and have used this expertise to develop electric cars.
http://www.byd.com/tech/F3etech.asp?show=t1&color=a
As I understand it, they will retail at about £15000. With a range of 180 miles, speed of 80 mph, and the possibility to fast charge from 3 phase outputs giving 100 miles range from 10 minutes charging.
They are currently anticipating selling in Europe by 2010. They have agreements with partners in Holland and Norway, but I have yet to see any mention of plans for the UK.
How about this for a vison? Ecotricity branded BYD electric cars, sold with the promise of being able to get 100 miles worth of charge in ten minutes from the new turbines Ecotricity plan at motorway service stations.
Just a thought
Steve.
Comment by steve thayne — September 16, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Hi mad architect - thanks for the comment - glad you are enjoying the blog too (I am still fairly new to all this!).
I notice you aren’t from the UK, in which case it might not be so obvious that Ecotricity’s main objective is to increase the amount of renewable energy on the UK grid… it’s not easy - but we are getting there one wind park at a time
Cheers
Comment by dale — September 18, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Thanks Steve, that’s a really interesting link. Not sure how their batteries compare to Lithium Polymer (the ones we’re using), on the site they compare themselves to Ni MH - in terms of energy density, the key stat in some ways.
Might be the batteries are less cutting edge but much cheaper for that, hence the very low car price. Good way to go if it works out.
I do like the idea of some wind driven charging points. Better add it to the list…..
Cheers.
Comment by dale — September 19, 2008 @ 9:13 am
Hi Peter,
I’m not saying we can’t possibly promote bikes - you made that one up. Which doesn’t help the discussion.
Bikes work, for some people in some circumstances - they could work for more people in more circumstances, I’d encourage that.
But bikes don’t work for all people and all circumstances, I’m saying don’t present such an extreme view that appears to rule out cars and rule in only bikes and public transport. That’s a vision that I think ‘won’t sell’ and doesn’t need to be sold anyway.
In your last post by the way, you said the only problem you had with the vision of mass use of electric cars was the need to throw away what we have and build a new set. I responded that this is not our ‘vision’, the car we’re building is a retro-fit, and I think this could be a model that works. Certainly way more sustainable than binning what we have and building millions more. And your response to having your one objection taken away? Well there wasn’t one.
I do disagree with you on the social side of the revolution (of the move the electric cars) - have you overlooked the closing of garages and refineries and the ability of us all to make our own car fuel? - that’s more than just a technical revolution, way more. This is power to the people stuff.
And I disagree that EVs won’t change how we travel and think about travel. One of the fundamental truisms of renewable energy is that when people start to think about where their power comes from, and especially if they make it themselves - then they start to change how they use it. The two travel together.
This isn’t supporting the car industry, that’s such a silly thing to say - is building windmills supporting the coal and gas generating industry? - or replacing them, making them redundant? Just because it has four wheels doesn’t make it bad.
In all the stuff you say about cars you only focus on the bad things, you overlook the personal freedom cars have given to so many people, people for whom public transport or a bike just won’t work. Cars are not *all* bad. They need reining in not killing off.
I think that’s the real point here. Balance. The future of transport won’t be bikes only - it will be a blend, bikes, better public transport, less travel, building the ‘world’ to enable that less travel - and clean cars powered by renewables.
In energy another truism is we need to use less and make what we do use from sustainable sources - the same thing is true in transport.
I’ve not dismissed you or your arguments (far from it), it’s silly to
say so. Nor have I intended to offend you with my ‘rabid’ comment. It is just how you come across to me, no offence intended. None taken for your middle class guilt, rich men’s toys shot either…..
Your comments about Sainsbury’s and greenwashing don’t appear well informed.
In the 9 years since we built the first turbine for Sainsbury’s (how many years ahead of the trend were they? hmm about 8!) they’ve not, to my knowledge ever publicised the fact, consider that if you will before declaring their motives to be suspect. And what do you actually know of their motives, or is it just prejudice you’re offering here?
Shame you should end on such a note. Probably my fault for irritating you.
Cheers.
E2A: We definitely are on the same side though. If we were the Tory party, you’d be the rightwing nutter (no offence seriously) advocating we leave the EU and join NAFTA, sell the NHS that kind of stuff and I’d be the guy saying no we need to be electable, or we stand no chance of making any difference.
Comment by dale — September 19, 2008 @ 9:19 am
While there are people out there who are prepared to profit at any cost, including the future of the human race (and to a lesser extent the future of biodiversity and life itself), and are busy turning the argument into a polemic one - the greens are arguing about which green is really green, which green is the right/best/most righteous green and so on. Divide and conquer, fear uncertainty and doubt (and all those other industrial military tactics).
A colleague of mine pointed out that this reminds him of a Monty Python sketch…
“When I were tryin to save the planet from inevitable anthropogenic self-destruction back in the noughtys - I used to get up in the morning (not from bed - I didn’t have a bed - I slept on a cold floor!) and then didn’t put on any clothes (as the impact of the clothing industry is too massive) and didn’t have any breakfast (I didn’t even gather berries from the hedgerows - what would the birds and maggots eat?!) and then…”
Well - you get the idea
Peter - some very very deep green people would criticise your for using a computer and supporting techno-culture, for using a bike when you could walk, and so on Ad infinitum, Ad nauseam…
Like Ruskin said:
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do.”
Comment by nommo — September 19, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Rgds
Damon
Comment by Damon Hart-Davis — September 19, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
No, they are Lithium (hence the 180 mile range off a single charge), but they have had had a huge staff on r and d for this, and my best understanding is that it is a version of the Lithium technology using Iron - this brings the price of the batteries down significantly which, as you will know, tends to be the biggest single cost in Electric cars using the Lithium technology. Their version of the lithium battery also allows the fast charge option, which I believe not all lithium batteries tolerate.
The thing I find encouraging about this company is that when they showed their plug in hybrid at the Detorit motor show this year (range 60 miles as a pure electric, small engine kicks in to charge the batteries after this) all the feedback has been that the build quality looks good. This has not always been the case with Chinese made cars. One to watch.
Comment by steve thayne — September 19, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Im afaraid to say that to stop me driving youll have to prise the keys from my cold dead hands but if you can get everyone else on bikes i will enjoy having the entire British road network to myself. Must say im very envious of the Lotus Elise EV, im looking forward to seeing its progress.
Comment by James — September 20, 2008 @ 2:10 am
Apologies for delay in response. been busy.
I think nommos comment is interesting. reminds me of a quote i used to start an essay i wrote a few years ago on the green movement:
“After nearly everybody – heads of state and heads of corporations, believers in technology and believers in growth – has turned environmentalist, the conflicts in the future will not centre on who is or who is not an environmentalist, but on who stands for what kind of environmentalism ”
Wolfgang Sachs, 1993
i would argue that if we are going to keep this planet habitable and life on it pleasurable, then the green movement needs to be very careful about the choices it makes - and be very happy to have debates like this…. to be prepared to support actions people may not be comofortable with, but also to be very critical of paths that look like they may lead in the wrong direction. course this flows both ways, personally, i tend to think the deep greens are generally right. (and i agree with ruskin, it’s what we do that matters, but we need to be aware that we can do as much damage accdentally when we think we’re doing ‘good’ as when we’re consciously not doing so)
your right wing tory thing is off the mark but i appreciate the metaphor. for me a better one is the german green party. to get elected they dropped their commitments to nuclear disarmament, have supported the deployment of german troops, and the repression of people campaigning against nuclear waste train transport and various other aspects that have left them little different to the mainstream parties. maybe you think those compromises were worth is to get elected… i think similarly the compromises the labour party made to get elected have meant it’s indistinguishable from the tories… i’d think we need to stick to our principles a fair bit at least.
but yep, i use a computer and don’t walk everywhere… i grow more and more of my own food, i don’t eat animal products, i only walk or bike or use public transport, and i try to buy as much of my stuff as possible locally. i get electric from ecotricity and i’m looking into getting off grid. i’m never going to fly again unless i really really really really have to (can’t really imagine why i’d need to). and i’m prepared to risk a lot to prevent the government building new runways or coal fired power stations. and i’m intent on working on helping to relocalise the stroud economy through Transition Stroud, promote bikes through Bicyology and challenge environmentalists everywhere to think seriously about what we need to do and not take the easy ways out… that’s enough on my background to answer all those questions i think.
as for your comments dale - you ay not have said that we cannot promote bikes but your continual attitude is that they are not for everyone, that we alienate people by promoting them etc, and most importantly, your’re not promoting them, you’re building an electric car, despite a bike being a greener transport choice.
regards retrofitting - apologies for not congratulating you on this, but it’s the car i’m concerned with, not the method of making it. ok, so you save resources in it’s manafacture, but would a retrofitted electric fighter jet be more ethical?
more importantly, why not use this retrofitting and electric technology for other vehicles? here’s a off the top of my head priority list:
ambulances
fire engines
public busses
long distance passenger coaches
freight trains
public trains
3 or 4 wheeled bikes with load carrying capacity
normal bikes with EV for hill help
etc
etc
and eventually i would get to
practical ‘vans’, ‘trucks’ and ‘cars’ for car clubs,
practical ‘vans’, ‘trucks’ and ‘cars’ for business/public use,
and all this would come way way way above a sports car. a retrofitted electric version of which just isn’t needed as part of our society. so if we’re trying to make drastic cuts, it’s one of the things we can maybe start to think about sacrificing?
your power to the people comment is interesting given that you must know that people moving to ecotricity hasn’t necessarily meant they use less electric. they’re not necessarily more connected to it’s production. they may even see it similarly to offsetting, and use it as an excuse to over-use energy.
i really can’t see people using cars less because they feel they’re cleaner. reading articles by people with priuses, they all boast of how far they can get per gallon and so how much they’ve been travelling.
i guess i haven’t made clear a crucial aspect which is that by maintaining the number of cars on the road (or even increasing it) by promoting EVs, you are directly affecting efforts to increase cycling.
this is an example of a area where two solutions can’t totally coexist. a ‘balance’ probably isn’t really possible. you can’t just say ‘i approve of promoting bike’ but i’m going to focus on Electric cars, because by doing so you affect bike promotion.
first you add to the argument that bikes aren’t a realistic/practical solution - which they clearly often are (maybe not always but a lot more often than now)
but more importantly, the main reason given by people that they don’t cycle more is the volume of car traffic. if you maintain or increase that, you make it less likely people will cycle.
at root, that’s my issue.
so you are supporting our car culture and be extension the car industry. i can’t genuinely believe you don’t see this, but as with much of this conversation, it would probably work better in person than via email. it’s the same way as your wind generators challenge gas and coal but don’t really challenge the way the power industry works. they change the way electricity is produced, but not the way it is delivered or used, or paid for. they don’t change our society’s relationship to electricity (though, yes, i admit, one day they may, if we were using all renewable energy, but it will be political arguments and action that make that possible, as much as your work as a company)
as for the rabid comment, it certainly didn’t offend me, and neither do your middle class guilt or right wing tory ones. my usual reaction is to be suprised people would rather diss than get involved in the issues, and laugh at their failure to see their criticisms in themselves (hence my explanation that you’re as rabid as i am!)
regards sainsbury’s, greenwash isn’t just about PR, it’s about whether you genuinely become green, or whether you do things to make yourselves believe you’re green without being so too. offsetting is like personal greenwashing, and i still feel that sainsbury’s are a business that will likely never be green - their model is just too far away from it, and they’ve done too much damage to redeem themselves - no matter how many wind turbines they build. so i wouldn’t work with them.
same with coke. if you want to find out more about them look out for mark thomas’ book and forthcoming tour etc. i don’t know if you’ve heard that bill hicks thing where he talks about people doing advertising being off the artistic roll call forever.. i sort of feel similar about people who work with the worst multinationals in the world and the environmental roll call. i’m really struggling to keep seeing you on the good side! the damage that coke, sainsburys and lotus have done is so great that i’d leave it to them to sort themselves out or fall by the wayside in the future, us greenies shouldn’t be helping them save themselves, or make profits..
anyway. all this is away from the main subject… cars:
here’s a quote from Sir Herbert Manzoni - late City Engineer of Birmingham (he carved up the city to keep the traffic flowing), talking about the car
“it is probably the most wasteful and uneconomic contrivance which has yet appeared among our personal possessions. The average passenger-load of motor cars in our streets is certainly less than 2 persons, and in terms of transportable load some 400 cubic feet of vehicle weighing over 1 ton is used to convey 4 cubic feet of humanity weighing about 2 hundredweight… The economic implication of this situation is ridiculous and I cannot believe is to be permanent”
I’m sure those figures are out of date (perhaps you could furnish us with your estimates), but the principle is the same. Cars are a hugely inefficient means of moving people around. they are still almost always used by one person to travel a distance they didn’t use to have to (to shops or work that used to be closer), or don’t need to (because they could easily walk or cycle).
Yes, they can be useful, but that’s why car clubs come in - for occasional use. personally owned sports car EVs that sit in garages or car parks for 90% of the time just don’t seem to be a priority to me, and i’m guessing, most other people.
But maybe I’m just not the right person to explain car culture and it’s problems to you. and this debate is getting kinda tiring, I’m sure for you too (and anyway you’re committed, so from my point of view, what’s the point). But here are some further reading suggestions for you… I wouldn’t normally expect you to follow them up, but I have been impressed by your interest and you seem to follow up other links so here goes.
That’ll be it from me on this I think. All the best with retrofitting that ambulance!
Andre Gorz - The Social Ideology of the Motor Car
see: http://rts.gn.apc.org/socid.htm
Colin Ward - Freedom to Go - After the Motor Car
Maybe I’ll put my copy in the Transition Library (in Stroud Library
or http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Go-After-Motor-Age/dp/0900384611
Ivan Illich - Energy, Equity & the Bicycle
http://clevercycles.com/energy_and_equity/
You could also try the World Carfree Network and it’s list of resources: http://www.worldcarfree.net/
http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/free.php
Mappa Mundi - The Preposterous Green Views of the Motorist (you might have trouble finding this one, but i could drop a photocopy round the ecotricity offices if you’re still interested enough after the others)
Enjoy!
Comment by Peter Pannier — September 28, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
I think this project is great.
Is the the total life carbon footprint and other non carbon-related environmental factors part of the decision making process that’s leading to your chosen solution?
It’s so hard to balance all the ways in which our actions effect the environment. In particular I’m thinking about materials and energy used in battery production.
Although battery technology is developing fast to increase the working characteristics; capacity:weight and capacity:volume ratios, I’m not aware of a concerted push to green up their manufacture.
I’m planning a similar project; preparing a vehicle that emits a zero/minimal carbon footprint. But in the process of planning and converting it I find the project is repeatedly asking me to balance “local” (non-CO2) environmental issues, against the zero emissions goal.
I’d be interested to hear what your thoughts are on this and what you’ve learnt from this project w.r.t. local v global environment.
Good luck, can’t wait to see it.
Andy
Comment by Andy Pag — September 30, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
Hi Peter, good to hear from you, but this is such a long post I can’t cover it all.
I think the basic problem is you are anti-car and I’m not - and you say I’m anti bike, and I’m not.
There are 30 Million cars on the road in the UK today and they’re not going away in a hurry. They need cleaning up, I reckon that’s better than trying to ignore them to death, which seems to be your approach.
It’s the same with companies like Sainsbury’s, who you slate for greenwashing, I tell you they’ve never promoted their turbine at all, and you say (shifting your argument again) but they are inherently unsustainable so should be left to get on with it. Silly nonsense if you ask me.
Some companies definitely are beyond the pale and need to be left. But 99% of business on the planet will meet your unsustainable test - should we ignore them all (and hope they die/change) or engage with them and help them get started? I think your way will lead you to do as Ruskin warns - ‘more harm while thinking you are doing good’.
The world needs to change. To change it we need to engage it as we find it and help it transition.
That’s where I’m coming from.
BTW, with regards insults the ‘middle class guilt, rich man’s toy’ was one of yours (not mine) - I’m not surprised you didn’t feel offended…
I think you’re wrong, fundamentally, in your approach, you think the same of me - let’s agree to disagree then and keep pulling in the same (basic) direction. best regards.
PS - I note that you say riding a bike is greener than driving a car, even an electric one - and that would seem axiomatic, at first glance. I have some interesting stats to post on this soon. Thought provoking rather than just provoking I hope…
Comment by dale — October 1, 2008 @ 9:16 am
No matter what people want, cars are going to be around for another 100 years at least, one focus has to be to make those cars as efficent as possible or even better zero emmissions in order to reduce the damage they do in those 100 years.
Its not goning to happen over night that people leave there cars in their driveways and cycle to work. There is a massive investment in this country, in terms of money and emmissons, in our roads, what would happen to those if there were no cars?
Getting rid of cars also seems like going backwards, de-evolving, finding a cure for cancer and not using it, we should go forward and adapt what we have to be as enviromental and sustainable as possible, that goes for everything, not just cars. I believe that we will never see cars completly disapear from our roads, im not anti-bike, im just being realistic.
Comment by James Nightingale — October 1, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Yes, it’s not obvious to me that even walking and cycling are *necessarily* more CO2-emission efficient than even an ICE car for some journeys. Not obvious either way: I need to see the sums.
The human body may well have a lower conversion efficiency from its fuel (food) to work than a highly-engineered and appropriately-sized electric vehicle, *AND* human fuel has to be extremely carefully prepared and handled (eg stored, refrigerated, whatever) all of which has a carbon cost too.
And thus a cyclist powered by beef is a very different gCO2/km machine to one powered by lentils, though the latter may have other emission problems! B^>
So, Dale, I shall be very interested to see your numbers.
Rgds
Damon
Comment by Damon Hart-Davis — October 1, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
I’ll be intrigued by these numbers too Dale. Certainly diet is crucial… and also whether or not your bike is a new aluminium framed shipped from china or not. but the crucial difference is that food you eat to fuel you as a cyclist has the side-benefit of keeping you alive. and the cycling has side-benefits of being good exercise and placing you directly in your local environment. we actually have to eat, wheras we don’t *have* to travel about (in a theoretical world anyway).
in the real world, yes we have to travel… but if people start making arguments like ‘we have these many cars, cars have been around for so long, so we can’t change anything’ then i have to ask why they environmentalists? do you have any hope for any change whatsoever? just about every trend we have points to environmental destruction.. if we don’t make some fairly radical breaks with the society with have… say for instance, if we swap to electric cars but don’t stop eating more and more animal products globally, don’t stop turning forest into farmland, don’t stop over-fishing… all these things are trends that have been emerging and getting worse, but we can’t just say ‘ah well, they must be essential, we’ll have to change the other things’, we’re - frankly - stuffed.
anyway, dale you still seem to see me as bike vs car. that’s part of it (you still don’t see that promoting car use damages bike promotion), but my main argument rearding transport is that we must travel MUCH LESS generally. from my point of view, this leads to an argument that cars - of whatever kind - will become much less necessary. i’ll be very interested in your figures, but i really can’t see that even a retro-fit electric car (still with a battery and bits assembled from all over the world?), can trump a second hand bike being riden at a pace that requires little extra calorific input than normal everyday food supply, over short cycling distances (generally I’d say up to 10 miles a day) and an occasional bit of oil/brake blocks being changed… even if it can, as i’ve mentioned at length - it’s the societal impacts as much as the carbon ones that are important.
cheers,
Comment by Peter Pannier — October 2, 2008 @ 9:12 am
Thanks Andy, I’ve got to confess though the local versus global stuff has not been on our minds here.
Our goal has been to demonstrate what can be done with today’s technology - not because we think this is the whole answer - we don’t, but because we think the big car companies are doing way less on this issue than they could and should - and so we hope to show them up a little.
There are all sorts of issues we’ve not considered, such as how green are batteries (in manufacture) anyway. I guess our basic premise is that anything has to be better than the current internal combustion engine status quo - and we don’t want to let ‘perfect be the enemy of good’
Better something, we think than nothing, is another way to put it.
Cheers.
Comment by dale — October 6, 2008 @ 8:15 am
Peter,
I want radical changes too. There is so much to change, and the faster the better. But that can’t happen fast. Its got to be bit by bit.
In todays society, we need cars. Cars create good things such has freedom and convenience - which society makes us want and need.
To stop using cars we need a radical change in society, which will not happen fast. It never has in the past has it? It will take time.
Bike is better (health + environment) but not adapted to today’s “developed countries” society - not on a nation wide basis. Whereas the car is. The proof is that most people use cars, even-though they are costly and damaging for the environment.
The bike has its place, and so does the car. The electric car is a solution for now, and the nation-wide bike one for later perhaps.
Regarding bike promotion, what is London waiting for to put in place a Velib system? perhaps you should get involved Peter
Perhaps when the consciousness changes then the mode of locomotion will change with it - our way of living will change due to our way of thinking. Until that changes, we need greener cars.
“but more importantly, the main reason given by people that they don’t cycle more is the volume of car traffic.”
Have you got some published reference for this conclusion please? I cannot believe that is THE MAIN REASON.
Comment by Clem — October 10, 2008 @ 12:35 am
Thanks Clem. I think that’s a good question at the end there for Peter. In my case it’s the huge hill I live on top of that puts me off. Car fumes are def an issue though. In which case wind powered cars might actually encourage more cyclists on the road. Would love to know the top three reasons why people say they don’t cycle to work. Cheers.
Comment by dale — October 28, 2008 @ 10:00 am
Comment by Jeffrey Lam — November 21, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Being Dutch, and riding a bike almost daily since the age of four, my cycling has taken a serious beating since moving over to the UK last year. Even though now my commute is only 2 miles as opposed to 4 in Holland. There are various reasons for this and I will try to outline them as good as I can.
1. Comfort: Weather in the UK is just as bad as in Holland, most people, and I in a lesser extend would not like to arrive at work, all soaked, and sweaty. Having the opportunity to take a shower at work will help.
2. Safety: I live on top off a pretty steep hill, in the middle of nowhere. It is hard work and often dangerous to cycle on the windy narrow country lanes, especially meeting cars, who do not expect you. On a bike you will most likely lose out in a full on collision with a car. Cycle lanes will help.
3. Time, in Amsterdam where I used to live, a bike is almost just as fast as car is, due to congestion, and traffic lights. In the country side a car is at least four times as fast, giving me a lot more time to be bussy being, bored at home
But in my opinion the most deciding factor weather people go to work by bike or not, is
just plain laziness. Having to get up earlier in the morning, facing the elements, getting out of breath, on an incline, ect.
Being an exercise and thrill seeking nut myself. I find it shocking how lethargic the average Joe(sephine) is.
I have bookmarked this site, and will keep coming back, to learn more about renewable energy ect. Keep up the good work.
Comment by Paul de Wit — November 23, 2008 @ 3:49 pm