Why The Electric Car Hype Is Overblown

Premium Analysis Newsletter Categories… Post an article/event
Search. . . Go
Why the electric car hype is overblown PREMIUM

September 15, 2017 by Schalk Cloete
Wind Build-Out: Convergence Of
Electric cars o er no clear fuel cost savings relative to e cient internal Process And Permitting Rules
combustion engine (ICE) options, writes independent researcher
Needed To Promote Certainty For
Schalk Cloete. CO2 and tailpipe emission bene ts are also insigni cant
relative to e cient ICEs. As a result, notes Cloete, ICE vehicles will
Investors
remain highly competitive with battery electric vehicles (BEVs).
fast charging station in

San Diego Electric car mania is sweeping the globe and people are predicting
the imminent death of the internal combustion engine (ICE) with
increasing vigor. Even The Economist recently got in on the act.
However, some simple objective analysis quickly shows that there is limited substance
behind all the hype.
Sails Make A Comeback As

Shipping Heads For Complete
Decarbonisation By 2035
Can Nuclear Compete For A Bigger

Role In The Transition?
I should establish right up front that I do not dispute that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will
see impressive growth over coming years. The only point I wish to make is that their
potential for achieving the rapid and economical emissions cuts the world so badly needs is
very low. Money spent on electric car technology-forcing is therefore, in my opinion, a bad
investment at a time when we really cannot a ord bad energy investments.
This article will outline the most important arguments in this thesis.
Fuel costs Nike Enters The Race For

One of the primary arguments for electric vehicles is lower fuel costs. Yes, the electric motor Renewables Investment As
is inherently much more e cient than the internal combustion engine (ICE), but the Governments Step Back
generation and distribution of electricity is also much more expensive than the production
and distribution of gasoline.
And no, the fuel costs of electric vehicles should not be compared to the woeful American
average fuel economy of 25 mpg. Electric vehicles are built for maximum e ciency so that
they can get more range out of a given battery pack. They should therefore be compared to
ICE cars that are built for maximum e ciency such as the Toyota Prius and the Hyundai Ioniq
(both pushing 60 mpg). Obviously, these highly e cient ICE cars present the best benchmark
for electric cars, given that they are also promoted as eco-friendly solutions with low fuel
costs. EU Can Help Bring Far-Ranging
Benefits Of A Meaningful Energy
Transition
For example, comparing the fuel costs for the Hyundai Ioniq hybrid and electric versions
shows only a small advantage for the electric car (which is $5000 more expensive with a
Energy Post platform – register
battery pack of only 28 kWh). If electricity was taxed the same as gasoline (to pay for things
like road maintenance), fuel costs would be essentially identical. Besides, at these e ciency Platform user log-in (not premium)
levels, fuel costs are typically about 10% of total car ownership costs. A 10% fuel cost
advantage one way or the other will therefore translate to a negligible 1% ownership cost
di erential.
Latest Platform posts
As discussed in a previous article, ICE and BEV drivetrains will probably end up with
e ciencies around 50% and 80% (including charging losses) respectively in the long run. The
following graph was created to show the electricity price where BEV fuel costs reach parity
with ICE fuel costs for a range of BEV e ciency advantages. It is clear that BEVs enjoy no
obvious fuel cost advantage under normal oil prices of $30-60/barrel.
Cyberattacks: the military considers

micro grids as the answer
March 1, 2019 By Lukas
Trakimavičius — Leave a Comment
The man who wanted to change the

world – portrait of a climate visionary
Arguably, the comparison should rather be made to average oil production costs ($20-
30/barrel), given that the di erence between market prices and production costs funds a February 26, 2019 By Mariëtte Faber
large chunk of public spending in many countries. In this case, from an overall global — Leave a Comment
perspective, fueling e cient ICEs can be signi cantly cheaper than fueling BEVs.
Emissions
The CO2 emissions of BEVs relative to ICEs depends primarily on the electricity mix that fuels
the BEV. In addition, the BEV battery leads to higher embodied CO2 of about 100 kg/kWh.
The graph below calculates the electricity CO2 intensity required by BEVs to emit less CO2
than ICE cars for the same three e ciency advantages displayed above. Future battery
embodied CO2 is assumed as 50 kg/kWh and calculated on a 60 kWh battery pack lasting
250000 miles. Majority of EU countries unable to
keep citizens warm this winter
February 21, 2019 By Friends of the
Earth Europe — Leave a Comment
Driving energy efficiency investment
beyond 2020
February 19, 2019 By Clare Taylor
— Leave a Comment
More Platform Posts >>
Given that the latest IEA New Policies scenario projects an average global electricity carbon
intensity of 0.42 kg/kWh by 2040 (currently 0.56 kg/kWh), it is clear that BEVs again don’t
o er any fundamental advantage relative to e cient ICE cars. Beyond 2040, electricity
carbon intensity will continue declining, but biofuels and synfuels will also reduce the carbon
intensity of ICE fuels.
If the world nally manages to implement proper technology-neutral climate policies, CO2
intensity of electricity will fall faster. However, this will increase electricity costs, reduce oil
prices and also accelerate the development of low-carbon fuels, thus keeping the ICE
competitive.
In any case, at these e ciency levels, even high CO2 prices do not greatly impact car Popular posts
ownership economics. The graph below calculates the CO2 cost savings of BEVs at a CO2
price of $150/ton and a future BEV e ciency of 0.24 kWh/mile (including charging losses).
Given that car ownership costs about $0.6/mile, potential BEV CO2 savings relative to regular
gasoline are in the order of 1%.
EXCLUSIVE: Geothermal could

represent a far bigger share of
renewables
777 views | posted on February 11, 2019
IEA: solar’s exponential growth could

make it less competitive, not more
The story is similar for other emissions. Local tailpipe emissions (e.g. NOx and PMs) from
e cient ICEs are very low. For example, the graph below shows that only about 10% of total
NOx and PMs of the Prius comes from the tailpipe. Incidentally, the total NOx and PMs tally
for the Nissan Leaf is 75% higher than the Prius on the same site.
Analysis: BP’s outlook for fossil fuels

could be undermined by slowing
energy demand
The compelling case for carbon

capture and storage
EXCLUSIVE: Chinese government’s

plan to meet the Paris goals
IEA: Battery storage races to keep up

with solar and wind’s demand-
matching challenges
Digitalisation is changing the energy

Scope for deployment
landscape
Battery electric drive is fundamentally best suited to vehicles driving shorter distances, i.e. 521 views | posted on February 7, 2019
commuting and general city driving. The longer the required range, the worse the economics
get, especially for larger vehicles. A battery pack size estimate is given below for vehicles of
di erent sizes with di erent range requirements.
Related Posts
No related posts.
At a cost of $100/kWh for batteries and $25/kW and $50/kW for a BEV and ICE drivetrain
respectively, the resulting cost comparison looks like this:
BEV attractiveness fades quickly with greater range requirements due to large battery pack
costs. In addition, a greater range requirement generally means highway driving at relatively
constant speeds where the ICE is at its best. For example, state of the art diesel truck engines
operate at 47% e ciency and can potentially reach 55% e ciency with improvements
o ering a relatively short payback period. Future specialized highway cars will o er similar
e ciencies as discussed in an earlier article. These applications within the ICE comfort zone
will be responsible for most freight and passenger transport energy requirements by 2040
shown below.
Fast charging stations o er a partial solution, but will substantially increase fuel costs for
BEVs. Fast chargers themselves are relatively expensive, imply peak-time charging with
higher electricity prices, and may require expensive electricity transmission to remote
locations.
For example, Tesla’s superchargers now cost customers in California about $0.20/kWh – a
price equivalent to $3.36/gal (excl. taxes) in a current hybrid that is half as e cient as a BEV.
Tesla claims that they will make no pro t at this price and long queuing times at
supercharging stations suggest that more expensive capacity buildouts are actually required.
More pessimistic assessments easily arrive at substantially higher fast charging costs.
An additional very important trend is that telecommuting, small electric vehicles and
doorstep delivery services will steadily displace short-distance car travel over coming
decades. People will eventually realize just how silly it is to haul 2 tons of metal over 50 miles
of roadway day after day to go and do computer work that could be done just as e ciently
from a home o ce.
I have previously estimated the truly enormous economic bene ts of telecommuting and
small electric vehicles in this article. The shear magnitude of these advantages and the great
attractiveness of car-free neighborhoods and city centers will eventually take away most of
the short-trip BEV sweet spot.
Autonomous vehicles
The greater capacity utilization potential o ered by autonomous vehicles has led to great
optimism regarding synergies with BEVs. Unfortunately, this optimism is unfounded because
no clear fuel cost advantage exists relative to the highly e cient ICE options that would
certainly be deployed for such high-utilization applications.
If anything, full autonomy will favor ICEs because tra c ow will be much smoother, greatly
enhancing ICE e ciency and longevity. The clear BEV advantage of strong and e cient
acceleration will be negated because autonomous vehicles will strive to minimize g-forces. In
addition, high-utilization autonomous vehicles will regularly travel more than 300 miles per
day, requiring either a costly large battery pack or lots of costly fast chargers that increase
daytime peak load.
The future for ICE drivetrains

My next article will describe how ICE and (potentially) fuel cell vehicles might adapt in the
longer term future to maximize e ciency, while minimizing costs and emissions. As a result,
these vehicles will remain highly competitive with BEVs even as battery costs come down.
The current deployment of BEVs in the US at a time when subsidies cover the entire battery
pack cost gives a rough idea of how this could turn out: Good performance in the
luxury/performance segment where battery pack costs are moderate compared to overall
vehicle costs and rapid acceleration is highly valued, but poor performance in the mass-
market where customers are mainly interested in low costs and convenience.
Editor’s Note
Schallk Cloete describes himself as “a research scientist searching for the objective reality about
the longer-term sustainability of industrialized human civilization on planet Earth. Issues
surrounding energy and climate are of central importance in this sustainability picture and I seek
to contribute a consistently pragmatic viewpoint to the ongoing debate. My formal research focus
is on second generation CO2 capture processes because these systems will be ideally suited to the
likely future scenario of a much belated scramble for deep and rapid decarbonization of the
global energy system.”
This article was rst published on our sister website The Energy Collective and is republished here
with permission.
Filed Under: *, Energy, Renewables, Transport and energy Tagged With: electric cars, energy
transition, nancing, renewables, sustainable mobility, transport
Comments
Leo Kerr says

September 15, 2017 at 12:42
First assumption with no reference “the generation and distribution of
electricity is also much more expensive than the production and distribution of
gasoline” – has the author factored in the oil wars in the middle east? This statement
is premised on the idea of central generation of electricity which will be shattered by
low solar and battery costs resulting in a distributed network. Then there’s embodied
energy in battery production – no mention of clean energy being involved in battery
production. No mention of electricity being generated from roof top solar to power
the BEV. And battery costs of $100kWh – this assumes battery costs will remain at this
magic number – in seven years battery costs will be half that (without any ‘major
battery breakthrough’). And ICE longevity – BEVs are currently good for half a million
miles and will be good for 1 million miles in the short term – best hope for ICE
vehicles will be around 300,000 miles. Then there’s charger costs –
in the real world most BEV owners charge at home. Seems the author is assuming ICE
technology will keep improving while BEV technology will be at a standstill. Sorry too
many holes in this assessment to be worth digging in further.
The author has been pushing his disingenuous arguments about BEVs for some time
– stating back in 2016:
“BEVs will have to achieve a range exceeding 200 miles as standard before broad
consumer acceptance can be achieved. As a result, future BEVs will have to come
equipped with a battery pack of about 80 kWh which will cost a hefty $8000 even
assuming optimistic future Li-ion battery pack costs of $100/kWh. This $8000 is a
good proxy of the expected price di erence between an ICE vehicle and a BEV which
will be accepted by the mass market.”
The GM Bolt travels 238 miles with a 60kWh battery. The average US car price is
$33,000 – the Tesla Model 3 costs $35,000. The new Nissan Leaf, the Renault Zoe and
the Hyundai Ioniq are alI priced under $30,000. And that’s just 18 months after the
author’s comment regarding batteries. The price of batteries is falling rapidly – on the
current cost curve they will be $50kWh by 2024. I could go on but you get the point –
for some reason he assumes technology has stopped development in regards to
energy density and production costs. It must also be noted in his costing that the
externalised costs to the health of people in cities is conveniently omitted even
though it’s in the hundreds of billions of dollars globally. [derogatory comments
censored].
Nigel West says

“has the author factored in the oil wars in the middle east?”
There hasn’t been an oil war since the 1970s and there is unlikely to be one now
the world is awash with oil and the OPEC cartel is toothless facing declining sales.
“No mention of electricity being generated from roof top solar to power the BEV”
As you say most EVs will be charged at home. UK studies show that EVs will be
charged at home overnight when system demand is low and networks can cope
better. So low solar prices will not be material in Europe. Solar is not much good
either during the winter in the northern hemisphere.
“BEVs are currently good for half a million miles and will be good for 1 million
miles in the short term”
Highly unlikely any car will reach that mileage as mechanical components will be
worn out and who wants to drive an old banger. Replacing a Tesla battery costs
around $20k currently too. Why waste money on a battery replacement for an
old EV to keep it running for so many miles? People will scrap the EV and buy
new.
Bob Wallace says

It’s appearing that EV batteries, at least Tesla’s, will outlast most car
bodies. The highest mileage Tesla S has now passed 250,000 miles and stills
holds 93% as much charge as when new.
Tired bodies will be recycled but the batteries may spend some time as grid
storage before they are recycled.
Tesla batteries are approaching $100/kWh and should drop lower. That will
make a new 85 kWh battery about half what you state.
Are Hansen says

All the wars in the Middle East where big powers were involved
(Britain, US, Russia,…) where about the oil: Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, …
Bob Wallace says
“There hasn’t been an oil war since the 1970s ”
Gulf War I – 1990 to 1991
Gulf War II – 2003 to 2011
GW II was not totally an oil war, but mainly an o shoot of GW I. “Un nished
business” and started by a president and vice president with very oily feet.
The US maintains a large (and expensive) military presence in the Middle

East for the purpose of keeping the oil owing.
Nigel West says

Gulf War 1 was to remove a dictator from Kuwait. The US (and
UK) presence in the ME is to contain Iran and defend countries on
Iran’s doorstep.
Hans says
And the reason they did and do all these things is to keep
the oil owing. Without oil the western countries would not get
their hands dirty dealing with htese countries.
Karel Beckman says

Iran as the great bogeyman. I recommend you read up on
some history. Try Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes, The History of the
CIA. For Iran speci cally I recommend Stephen Kinzer, All the
Shah’s Men. None of this is “conspiracy theories”. Just standard
history. You will learn that it was not Iran that was aggressive but
the US and UK which have been aggressive towards Iran. Later
their role was taken over by – hey, yeah, that same dictator that
had invaded Kuwait. He was backed by the US and UK as long as
he fought Iran. They dumped him when he turned on Kuwait. As
to defending countries on Iran’s doorstep, the US and UK have
been backing Saudi Arabia indeed, not to protect it from Iran, but,
as Hans says, to keep the oil owing. Never mind that Saudi
Arabia is a far worse dictatorship than Iran (which is much more
democratic) and a far greater nancial supporter of terrorism and
fundamentalism. ISIS is not supported by Iran, Nigel.
Nigel West says

S. Arabia has many faults for sure. The issue for the
UK/US with Iran is the theocracy’s hatred of the US and
threats to annihilate Israel – one made by Iran’s military head
a few days ago. Also Iranian sponsored Hezbollah sitting in S.
Lebanon as a proxy force. Earlier this year Iran threatened to
destroy S. Arabia too. The Iran deal brokered by Kerry is
awful (note his son-in-law is Iranian) and only delays Iran
gaining nukes. The mullahs are not to be trusted either
having concealed nuke facilities for decades.
I studied with Iranian students and they are ne and
westernised and I have Iranian friends in the UK who came
here to escape the theocracy.
Unfortunately even if oil owing through the Gulf reduces in
importance to the west, western forces will be needed in the
Gulf to keep the religious factions apart to stop a
con agration engul ng the ME.
Karel Beckman says

A can of worms this of course. Iran supports
Hezbollah – yes, are people allowed to defend
themselves against Israeli aggression? The apartheid
system in Israel and the destruction of Palestinian
society is a crime against humanity, aided and abetted
by the West. Iran hides its nukes? Israel does not even
admit it has nukes, and is not party to the non-
proliferation treaty, as Iran is,, nor is it required to be by
its US and UK backers. Ever wondered why Iran has a
theocracy in the rst place? After the US and UK
deposed the democratic government of Mohammed
Mossadeq in 1953, because he was a threat to British oil
interests, they supported the savage regime of the Shah
for 25 years. The US embassy was next to the prison of
the Savak were political opponents were tortured. Hey,
the people who nally threw out the Shah in 1979 were
(in part) religious fundamentalists. Strange, isn’t it, that
they weren’t admirers of America? They were then
battered for 10 yrs by the evil regime of Saddam
Hussein, again backed by US and UK, who sent
representatives there. Now who is a threat to whom?
Ever looked at it fro the other side? Mention to me
another example of Iranian aggressiveness please?
Yemen? Oh no that’s Saudi Arabia again. Ever looked at
American foreign interventions over the last 50 years?
Again, who is threatening whom?You even turn a blind
eye to the evil the Saudi’s are causing throughout the
western world, poisoning people’s minds in Europe,
undermining our society. Iran does not do that.
Helmut Frik says

Well, on the other hand israel is under
permanent attack for 70 years now. Who would be
so correct and just to always avoid all misbehaving
towards neighbours under such circumstances? I
dislike walls, and I dislike the incorret places where
the wall is often built in detail in israel, but it might
allow both sides to be a bit more seperated and
calm down over time there. But time will be
decades. Nethanjahu is a catastrophy for such a
development on the other hand, Trumps wrong
words too.
The US are big, and because of this doing a lot, and
by doing so doing a lot of things wrong, too,
especially the secret services. On the other hand, at
least before Trump, they were also able to lend a
helping hand again when things were setteled.
Russia does simlar amounts of “wrong” but I could
not see a helping hand from there. Wrongs can not
be balanced by other wrongs, but it is important to
keep perspective right. The world would not
become a better place with the us doing nothing
outside it’s borders, so far.
That oil is more a curst than a bene t can be seen
threwout the world, the only big oil exporter where
free living is easy is norway.
So getting rid of oil for fuelinig transport might
improve a lot in the world. Might, not must.
Karel Beckman says

Ùnder attack for 70 years? Well, they
drove out the Palestinians rst, after
which the Palestinians have been vainly trying
to get back what they owned for 70 years.
They are now second-rate people on their own
land.
Bob Wallace says

I have no desire to get into this –
but –
Didn’t the Jews basically buy up a lot of

Palestine and some of the Palestinians
left when the Israeli government was
formed?
Just asking a history question.
Karel Beckman says

Yes this is not the place to
continue this discussion. Check this out if
you are interested:
https://mises.org/library/alienation-
home-land-how-palestine-became-israel
Helmut Frik says

well, there was a UN decision
which established israel following the
jewish immigration to palestina in the
decades before. If this development
before was good or bad is another
question, it was triggered by the things
happening in worlwar 2 and antisemitism
in large parts of the world before.
Arabian palestinians became somewhat
second class citicens over time, because
the permanent attacks on israel naturally
also separated the population groups
more than neccesary, because naturally
(but not good) jewish israeli are afraied of
their arabian neighbours if they become
toerrorists and start killing them. Pt
yourself into the situation of a israeli, too,
sometimes. There are a lot of
organisations and states around israel
who want to eliminate israel including
jewish population. How should this help
taht the israelis treat the palestinians
friendly and as equals?
It is a histroical fact that now there is a
jewish population in israel (again) as it is a
historical fact that over the centuries
before arab popullation moved there, and
existing population was assimilated ba
arab palestinians.
Nigel West says
In liberal Europe we enjoy great
freedoms of speech and religion. Those
countries that share these values are few
and far between in the ME. Many ME
countries are lead by people who
dislike/hate the west and our values and
freedoms. Bashing and criticising Israel
and the US who are our friends will not
be good for Europe long-term.
Karel Beckman says

This is just the point I am making!
US and UK support people who
dislike/hate freedom and rights! They
don’t extend freedoms and rights to other
people, e.g. the ones that they routinely
bomb to death. The US has backed
dictators in Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, the Gulf
States, Guatemala, Nicaragua, many other
Latin American and African countries. It
has killed millions of innocent civilians
throughout the world. Israel is a racist,
apartheid regime that tramples on the
freedoms and human rights of Palestinian
people. By the way, Iran, bad as it is, is the
most democratic country in the Middle
East, much more democratic than the
regimes supported by the US and UK. And
by the way, the US has more people in
prison than any country on earth, so I am
not so sure about those “great freedoms”.
They have tanks in the streets. I would
not like run afoul of the US government. I
fear you live in an Anglo-Saxon
propaganda bubble.
Bob Wallace says

“US and UK support people who
dislike/hate freedom and rights! ”
It’s a lot more complex than can be

summed up in a single statement, Karel.
My take is that the US (I’ll leave the UK out

of this) has done both good and bad.
Helping defeat Hitler is something that I

would consider good. Helping to stop the
Balkans War was was good, IMO.
Invading Iraq was bad.
Getting involved in Vietnam was thought

to be good but turned out bad.
Sometimes we nd ourselves in a
lose/lose worse situation. Do you support
a “mild” dictator or do you open the door
for a much crueler government come into
power?
Here’s the bottom line, Karel. If other

countries don’t like the decisions the US
makes then they need to step up and
take on some of the world’s problems
rather than leaving them to the US.
Independence 01776 says

October 6, 2017 at 23:31
The authors arguments are weak. Busses are going EV because cost of
operation and maintenance are lower, to the tune of 50 to 60k per year. Semi’s
are next. Power isn’t the problem, Tesla has proven well that a motor can power
a car faster than just about the highest performance ICE vehicle. Battery weight
and size and cost are obviously an impediment, but his is being removed rapidly
as economies of scale grow and billions are now pouring into research leading to
faster technology advancement in and industry that has halved the weight, size
and capacity per $ in just 6 short years. Expect the same to occur in the next six if
not faster. This is typical of technology just as we are seeing accelerating drops in
the price of solar and wind technology. As for emissions, EV’s are 3x the
e ciency of gas powered cars, natural gas which has similar power conversions
as gasoline is much more e cient when generating electricity at a large power
plant (much less waste), than gasoline is in your car, which has about an 80%
energy waste.
Finally it’s all about the economics. For myself, I now have a electricity supplier
o ered through my Utility company that is 100% renewable energy and which
varies pricing per time of day. If I charge my EV at night, the cost is only 2.5 cents
per KW. In other words, I can drive 100 miles for 75 cents. Why the Author
doesn’t mention that reality I don’t know. EV’s = independence from big oil. And
how you decide to get your electricity is up to you, but the cost of producing
renewable electricity in many parts of the world is now less than using coal and
natural gas. And unlike fossil fuels, the more demand for renewables, the faster
the price drops. I think any investor knows which side of the equation they want
to be on, which is why billions of private equity are owing away from fossil fuels
and into renewables. There’s no arguing the facts, unless of course you work for
big oil.

October 6, 2017 at 23:40
P.S. The author is comparing a Prius to a Tesla. Enough of the
nonsense already. The plug in Prius gets about the same MPG.
And the Ford 350 is more powerful than a Tesla,

Therefore since ICE vehicles have more power and get better mileage they
are better.
Nice argument. Next he’ll say planes require gas to y and EV’s will never be
able to y on batteries so that means ICE cars are better.
Nigel West says
October 7, 2017 at 12:30
“For myself, I now have a electricity supplier o ered through my
Utility company that is 100% renewable energy and which varies pricing per
time of day.”
The grid is supplied by a mix of gen. sources. So your supply is not 100%
renewable. Likely around 30% renewable on average. Also if you charge at
night when there is no solar it will be even less.
Bob Wallace says

October 9, 2017 at 04:21
That’s not how things work over here, Nigel.
One can subscribe to purchase all their electricity from renewable

sources and as many kWh as you use will be put on the grid by your
supplier.
Yes, your electrons will be mixed in with nasty old coal electrons and
glow in the dark nuclear reactor electrons but we look at the origin
where you purchase.
None of the money you spend on electricity will go to a fossil fuel or

nuclear plant.
Chris says
January 10, 2018 at 17:41
@Bob, does your electricity supply fail on a cloudy
windlesss day ? That is the time when no renewables are
supplying, if you still have an electrical supply under those
circumstances your supply is not 100% renewable, it is propped
up by Nuclear and coal (reliables, not renewables). Every
renewable source needs 100% backup from conventional source,
and a German energy expert said that (although it is obvious
because renewables are just so unreliable in their output).
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
monitor this site, it may surprise you…
Hans says
January 11, 2018 at 10:46
The UK happens to have grid connections to France,
the Netherlands, Ireland, a connection to Norway is
underway. Even with your silly Brexit there is no need for the
UK to be self-su cient in power every moment of the day.
Chris says
January 11, 2018 at 14:31
Those connections have only a small capacity
compared with 45GW required by UK, and that is
without EV needs which will be in addition to that.
And Brexit was inevitable and not silly, United States of

Europe is the silly thing, a 1950 idea that has passed its
use by date. UK may be part of Europe by geographical
accident but our thinking is completely di erent.
Helmut Frik says

January 11, 2018 at 16:34
The interconnectors under construction /
in advanced planning state sum up to
about 15 GW, which is not insigni cant
compared to 45 gW of consumption. The
doggerbank star in the north sea, as planned by
Tennet and other utilities will multiply this
exchange capacity.
P.S. in case you would accidentally cross the border
to outside the UK you woud nd that the way of
thinking, and even the language (local dialects) is
quite similar on the other side of the water
compared to almost any other place in the world.
Bob Wallace says

January 11, 2018 at 18:52
“about 15 GW, which is not
insigni cant compared to 45 gW of
consumption”
The UK does not need a 45 GW connection to

Europe.
The UK needs some storage just to t their

wind and solar production to demand.
There will be periods when national wind and

solar are not providing 100% of the daily
demand. At that point an amount smaller than
45 GW can be fed in, used directly when
needed, and used to recharge local storage
when demand is lower.
Even if the UK intended to purchase 100% of

its electricity from Europe it wouldn’t need a
45 GW line. What would be needed is a “30”
GW line and on-island storage.
Import the average demand. Use storage to

distribute between high and low peak
demands.
Helmut Frik says

January 11, 2018 at 22:03
The question is : what is cheaper-
power lines or storage. Usually – unless
you go down to very small time variations
– power lines are cheaper. Also to export
extra wind power for a good price to
customers elsewhere. UK can produce
tons of tWh of o shore wind power for
good prices. See it as a export industry
like oil and gas in the 1980’s
Bob Wallace says

January 12, 2018 at 08:25
“what is cheaper- power lines or
storage”
That is a question that cannot be

answered at this time. We don’t know
how much storage will cost a decade or
two from now when it’s time to add a
bunch.
And we don’t know how well a European
grid might integrate to minimize storage.
Helmut Frik says

January 12, 2018 at 09:16
This is why cost estimates are
used – for bth directions because any
planning needs a signi cant time, so
decisions have to be made while some
things are not yet totally sure. Something
which was obvious for our fathers and
grandfathers, but is something new for
most people today, as it seems to me
For longer term power shifts, lasting days,
weeks or months, power lines are below
any prediction for small to medium scale
storage, and big storage (TWh) is only
possible a some places – and most likely
still not competitive, and would also need
a huge grid.
Since entsoe is working on the neccesary
grid expansions in europe, I guess it will
be there. Maybe a bit late but still in time
Bob Wallace says

January 11, 2018 at 18:36
Wind and solar do need back up, or more precisely,
ll-in. When they are not generating enough electricity grids
will have to use another source.
Those ll-in sources can be a mix of storage and dispatchable

generation. The need for ll-in can be lowered with load-
shifting.
100% renewable grids have been modeled multiple times.

There’s no “We can’t do this” issue. It’s all about how we get a
low carbon grid at the best price.
The other low carbon option is nuclear. Nuclear, unlike wind

and solar, needs spinning backup because one cannot
predict when a reactor might suddenly quit operating.
Each year the US’s ~100 reactors have, between them,

around 100 unscheduled outages. Sometime we lose more
than one reactor at the same time. There has to be backup
that can step in immediately to replace those large plants
elsewise the grid goes down.
So, what are our options?
1) Wind and solar, which have become quite inexpensive,

plus storage and dispatchable generation.
2) Nuclear, which costs more than the retail rate. Plus

spinning backup. Plus some amount of storage in order to t
supply to demand as reactors can’t ramp fast enough to keep
grids stable.
Consider your pocketbooks. The UK is going to have to

replace aging out reactors. Do some honest math. Have
some objective, knowledgeable people work out a long term
cost for a renewable grid and a nuclear grid.
Helmut Frik says

January 11, 2018 at 22:00
And include, that large grids (interconnectors,
etc) replace storage, the bigger and stronger the grid,
the less storage is needed.

October 7, 2017 at 00:06
No need to factor anything. Transferring electricity is cheap, but hasn’t
been done because there is no need. Electricity is easy to produce almost
anywhere, doesn’t need to be transferred. Once the need exist, the price to
transfer electricity 3000 miles will be 100 times less than transferring oil or gas.
We’re talking electrons vs. molecules here folks, not to mention the safety issues
with transferring explosive molecules and of course the environmental cost
when things go wrong.
Next power e ciency. Simple argument, if gas is so good, how come I don’t have
a gas powered vacumn cleaner? Wouldn’t it be cheaper. Ain’t no di erent for
cars, trucks, etc. The issue has always been battery storage capacity and weight
and cost. As those have come down, the reality of lower cost electric
transportation is viable. Economies of scale are now set to drive down
technology cost in half every 5 to 6 years for a number of generations. Internal
combustion engines have been around for how many years, gas prices have
been high since the 70’s. Why no major e ciency improvements, other than
smaller lighter cars. That’s not e ciency engines. So the reality is opposite of
what the author believes, or perhaps were all going to be driving diesel powered
vehicles to gain a small advantage in power and e ciency. Please with the b.s.
oranges to apples analogies already.

October 7, 2017 at 00:17
The author has cobbled together data comparing apples and oranges to
make arguments that bypass logic. For safety, cost of transporting energy,
e ciency, and cost electricity is far superior to fossil fuels. If this wasn’t true, you
vacuum cleaner, washer and dryer, etc., would be gas powered.
What fossil fuels have historically had an advantage is the cost of storage, a
tankfull of gas can get you 3 to 400 miles. A gas station can ll hundreds of
vehicles. Now that storage cost are coming down, the car is going to be just like a
electric vacuum cleaner when compared to ICE powered vehicles, faster, better,
safer, and cheaper to operate. And now Tesla with the Model 3 and Nissan with
the 2018 Leaf are proving lower purchase price than comparable vehicles as
well.
It’s game, set, match and the biggest factor of all is now in play, as demand for
renewables increases, prices drop faster, just the opposite of what happens
when demand for fossil fuels increases. EV demand is going to drop prices
rapidly as well, as automakers pour billions in to this market in order to out
compete each other.
Vacuum cleaner with a gas engine, 10,000 parts, electric vacuum cleaner less
than 1,000 parts. ICE vehicle more than 30,000 parts, EV, less than 10,000 parts.
Those are the facts that matter.
Wandering Dutchman says

March 12, 2018 at 16:07
Great reply Leo. They author is an EV denier. Fossil fuels are subsidised
to the tune of Trillions of Dollars each year according to the IMF. Electricity can
be generated and stored (in recycled car batteries) locally. As a leased EV driver I
am astonished that ICE drivers don’t know the true costs and impact of their
vehicles.
Je rey Michel says

One of the criticisms leveled against internal combustion engines concerns
the high particulate (PM) levels ascribed to diesel automobiles. It is commonly
assumed that electric automobiles would eliminate the resulting imperilments of
human health.
A 2014 study by the German Environment Aid (DUH), however, determined that 44
percent of the airborne particulates in city tra c had resulted from tire and brake
lining friction. The type of motor employed in individual vehicles is correspondingly
irrelevant to this component of municipal air pollution.
Leo Kerr says

You’re right – EVs will not eliminate all particulate matter however the
study you refer to has not taken in to account regenerative braking. If you’ve
driven an EV you soon realise you rarely touch the brakes (try it if you don’t
believe me). The study did not mention that fact. So I’m not sure what
percentage of the 44percent is due speci cally to brake lining friction but I would
imagine it would be close to half. EVs will decrease PM levels signi cantly more
than what the study suggests.
Je rey Michel says

A report I’ve now found refers to the copper in brake linings being
the principal cause of concern.
The tire manufacturers for their part have apparently been successful in
reducing most toxic substances in the rubber they use.
All cars, however, will raise the dust already present on road surfaces. For
that reason, some cities regularly wash down their main thoroughfares.
Leo Kerr says

that’s good to know Je rey
Karel Beckman says
You are quoting from an unspeci ed 2016 article when responding to thjis
article? That does not sound very convincing.
Battery costs $100/kWh – we are not anywhere close to that yet. Tesla was reportedly
at $190 at the beginning of the year and McKinsey was predicting $100 by 2030 – see
https://electrek.co/2017/01/30/electric-vehicle-battery-cost-dropped-80-6-years-
227kwh-tesla-190kwh/
I am personally an EV fan and this author may have it wrong, but I think it’s worth
taking his arguments seriously.
Leo Kerr says

Here’s the article Karel : https://energypost.eu/can-battery-electrics-
disrupt-internal-combustion-engine-part-1/
Yes McKinsey – that would be the same McKinsey that predicted for AT&T that
mobile phone growth (their 15 year prediction) would result in 900,000
subscribers by 2000. The actual number was 109 million – a 120 times mistaken
prediction.
If you consider lithium ion battery costs have come down 80% since 2010 from
$1,000kWh to $200kWh today (Tesla have claimed to be below $190 since 2016
and are predicting a 35% decrease ($135) with the Gigafactory ramping up). Elon
Musk has also stated he’ll be disappointed if they aren’t at $100 by 2020. GM
have said their cell price is $145kWh but the pack itself is around $225.
If the battery cost curve continues at the rate it has enjoyed over the past 7 years
then we hit around $40kWh around 2024. But …. it looks like that cost curve will
accelerate further due to economies of scale as more large scale battery
factories come on stream.
McKinsey’s prediction of $100 by 2030 like just about all previous ‘expert’
technology predictions about lithium ion batteries is ridiculously conservative.

October 6, 2017 at 23:42
It’s both economies of scale and faster technology improvements as
demand drives companies to spend billions in order to grab market share,
which hastens the technology advancement.
Je rey Michel says

While there are arguments for both types of motive power, the recent
decision of Los Angeles to buy electric-powered police cruisers, street sweepers,
and trash haulers speaks for the advisability of using electri ed service vehicles
that make frequent stops. A number of European cities are currently testing
electric buses, and several have already placed them into regular service. The
German electric Streetscooter originally developed for the post o ce has a
waiting list of private customers and commercial delivery services.
Apart from all technical considerations, compulsory vehicle electri cation within
cities would eliminate the current exposure of baby carriages to close-proximity
motor exhaust fumes on sidewalks and at pedestrian crossings.
I recall someone once remarking that placing car exhaust pipes at the front of
each motor vehicle would submit the driver directly to the pollution he was
causing. While that sounds drastic, is there any fundamental di erence from
inhaling the exhaust fumes of the car immediately ahead in city tra c?
Bob Wallace says
GM is paying LG Chem $145/kWh for cells for their Bolt. Turned into
packs the cost is likely in the $175 to $190 range.
Je Evanson, VP of Tesla Investor Relations, stated that Tesla’s all-in pack cost
was below $190/kWh in April, 2016.
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/27/tesla-model-3-pricing-battery-pricing-
unveiled/#comment-2645763009
It’s frustrating that we don’t get to learn battery prices in a direct fashion but
have to cobble together the information we do nd into a narrative. Working
back from the $180/kWh pack price Tesla is probably paying less than GM for
cells at this point. A common assumption (based on a statement in a Tesla video)
is that the Gigafactory will lower cell price by 30% or better. That would mean cell
prices around $100/kWh.
Leo Kerr says

By the way Karel – McKinsey predicted in 2012 battery prices would be $200
by 2020 – http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-
productivity/our-insights/battery-technology-charges-ahead
Then in 2016 they predicted that battery prices would be …… wait for it: $200kWh by
2020 (at a time – 2016- when Tesla was already at $190kWh) – here’s the link:
http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-
productivity/our-insights/the-new-economics-of-energy-storage
There were three authors in that last report – all I can say is, pretty damn sloppy.
S. Herb says
The author is right about the direction cities and tra c should take and is
qualitatively right that the CO2 advantage of EVs is overestimated by enthusiasts,
although that will be improving. These are not reasons to hold back with the EV
developments. We need to get the ICEs out of the cities and we need to start
shrinking the role of petroleum in our society, and the EVs will play a big role for both.
These are enormous long-term projects and we can’t wait for someone to x the cities
rst. I think it more likely that expenditures on EVs will encourage, rather than
displace other CO2 reduction measures (the issues blocking them are more
psychological and political than nancial).
Nigel West says

Agreed, lower demand for gasoline should mean prices remain low so ICE
ownership remains competitive. Another signi cant factor to consider in comparing
fuel/electricity costs is tax. E.g. UK Government takes c. £30bn/year in road fuel tax –
over 50% of the price of petrol/diesel is tax/duty. Whereas electricity used to charge
cars at home is only taxed at 5%. Government can’t a ord to lose that revenue. If they
eventually tax BEVs to make up for lost revenue through reduced sales of road fuel,
BEVs could quickly lose their sparkle…
On emissions, this article begs the question, have Governments planning to phase
out ICE cars really thought through the bene ts. Because it’s clear EVs will not be
much better for the environment than ICE vehicles.
Leo Kerr says

It doesn’t matter if gasoline prices remain low – ICE vehicles are being
legislated out of existence. The UK, France, Scotland, Norway, Holland, Denmark
have all announced plans to rid themselves of petrol/diesel vehicles – the earliest
of those by 2025 and the latest by 2040. Cities including Madrid, Athens, Paris
and Mexico City plan to banish diesel by 2025. But the real nails in the co n for
ICE vehicles are the push by India to electrify their eet by 2030 and the recent
announcement of the intention of the Chinese to rid themselves of ICE vehicles
altogether. The dominoes are falling – oil can become as cheap it can possibly be
and still not be competitive. Each iteration of technology becomes better and
cheaper – ICE is analogue – EVs are digital. ICE vehicles will be unable to compete
on sticker price by 2025 or sooner. It is arguable BEVs are already cheaper than
equivalent ICE vehicles in total cost of ownership.
As far as loss of revenue goes for governments – that will not be an issue –
governments are extremely creative in nding ways to tax their citizens. It will be
quite easy to tax any vehicle by the number of kilometers travelled.
As ex Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani predicted in the year 2000 – “Thirty years
from now there will be a huge amount of oil – and no buyers”. He thought it
would be fuel cells that killed o oil – he got the technology wrong – it will be
BEVs – whether you like them or not it’s simply unstoppable now.
Bob Wallace says

” It is arguable BEVs are already cheaper than equivalent ICE
vehicles in total cost of ownership.”
It’s not a hard argument to make. Tesla 3 vs. BMW Series 3.
Tesla
Base price $35,000
13,000 miles per year using US average $0.12/kWh electricity = $520/year
BMW
MSRP = $33,450
13,000 miles per year using US average $2.50/gallon gasoline = $873 plus
$150 for oil changes = $1,028
Time to recover the $1,550 additional cost for the Model 3 = $1,550 / $508 =
3 years.
Martha Wiles says

And that’s not even factoring in the much lower maintenance
costs and aggravation for BEVs: less brake wear, no oil changes, no
tune-ups, no belts or water pumps or transmissions to fail. Only the
tires and the possibility that after 300k miles you will need a new
battery, by which time, you have probably sold the car.
Are Hansen says

Spot on!
…and the quite drive with little vibrations, quick acceleration,

never having to go to a gas station again, no starting problems, no
poisonous/carcinogenic fumes,…
Je rey Michel says
The maintenance procedures you describe are largely
centralized in the generating plant supplying energy for a large
eet of electric vehicles. The power supply could alternatively be
subdivided into a multitude of wind turbines and solar farms, for
which correspondingly more individual attention will be required.
Automobile dealers nowadays earn their money in vehicle

maintenance, so that many of them could be closing down in the
future era of electric mobility. It should be possible to
manufacture cars locally, however, as is already the case in
suburban Asia. Automobiles with electric motors are delivered as
knockdown assemblies and bolted together in neighborhood
garages. Many people throughout the world need nothing more
to meet their daily transportation needs.
Nigel West says

“ICE vehicles are being legislated out of existence.”
The UK has not proposed a ban on hybrids. Legislation is years away and
the form not known. Low emission hybrids can be controlled to prevent
their ICE engines running in cities. A forced switch to BEVs only is not
necessary.
I forced switch to solely BEVs could only be justi ed if and when the UKs
electricity generation is largely emissions free. France is currently in the best
position on low emissions from generation, but likely to spoil that by
moving away from nuclear which will result in burning more fossil fuels.
If EVs are taxed in the UK, or current tax breaks removed, sales will stall.
Nigel West says

“It is arguable BEVs are already cheaper than equivalent ICE
vehicles in total cost of ownership.”
Not in the UK. Check out the VW Golf E at £30k compared to the petrol
version Golf S at £18k.
Bob Wallace says

What’s the typical lifespan of a car in the UK?
You’ve got some pretty expensive fuel prices, do you not?
£12k / expected life = ?
(An 18 year lifespan = £670/year)
Cost of fuel and oil changes, more frequent brake rebuilds per year = ?
Cost of charging per year = ?
Got numbers?
Nigel West says
Most cars sold these days in the UK are on personal
contracts. It’s attractive to lease a car for a small deposit then
hand back after 3 years in exchange for a new one. Enables many
people to drive cars they couldn’t a ord to purchase. Hassle free
motoring too as the cars are covered by a 3 year warranty. Also
popular with car makers who sell more vehicles. Almost 1 in 3 sold
here are German, the UK being their biggest export market.
Government is concerned about the level of car debt and may
clamp down on the industry making it more di cult to lease new
cars. I believe the average length of car ownership in the UK is
currently about 4 years. Although cars last much longer.
A new car covering 25k miles typically needs just one oil service in
3 years of ownership costing about £300. Also a set of new tyres –
£500. Brakes depends on the driver. My car is over 4 years old and
brakes still ne.
Petrol is around £1.15p/litre. Domestic electricity costs 12p/kWh

day rates, 7p/kWh o peak at night.
Bob Wallace says

Math, Nigel. Do you need me to do it for you?
The question was not whether an EV costs more or less

during a three year lease. It was over the life of the car.
Did you avoid answering the question because you realized

that the result was not what you wanted to hear? Or ?
Nigel West says

Bob, I haven’t run through the numbers. EVs
don’t interest me. Possibly a hybrid though which are far
more popular in Europe and were all the talk at the
recent Frankfurt motor show.
However why would a buyer of a new car who didn’t
intend to keep it beyond 4 years (the point where a rst
purchaser in the UK typically trades in a new car) be
bothered about lower EV running costs over the life of
the car? Typically a petrol car uses £100/month in fuel. If
the EV only cost £10/month to charge so saving about
£4000 in petrol costs over 4 years, a Golf E compared to
the petrol version would not be cost e ective.
Note too that in the UK EV’s depreciate faster than ICE
cars and cost more to insure.
Helmut Frik says

The costs the cas has in his further life
de nes the price at which the car can be sold after
4 years.
If people nd out taht a EV is as good as new after 4
years (“if”) , then the prices for sales will be higher
than for cars with ICE after 4 years.
Bob Wallace says

We know that electric motors have
very long lifetimes with no maintenance
needed.
At 250,000 miles driven a Tesla Model S is still
showing 93% of original capacity. (It’s been
doing taxi service.)
Normally it would take about 20 years of US

driving to put 250,000 miles on a car.
A 20 year old car with a highly dependable

propulsion system. No transmission, no
engine problems, etc. That’s going to have a lot
of resale value.
A 20 year old ICEV with 250,000 is generally a

piece of unreliable junk.
Nigel West says

In the UK the Tesla Model S car
costs >£60k rising to over £100k. It’s way
too expensive to buy outright for most
people.
Expensive too on a 3 year lease starting at
£900/month for the base version to
£2700/month for the ‘Ludicrous’ version.
Ludicrous performance -some would say
on price too!
Nigel West says

On the popular UK lease schemes
buyers hand back the car after 3/4 years so
are not concerned about the residual value.
The lease company then sells the car.
An EV’s higher depreciation compared to an
ICE car I expect is down to concern over
battery life and the risk of needing a
replacement costing perhaps £5000 plus?
VW UK currently is o ering a Golf e on nance

for £319/month and customer deposit is
£7200.
The petrol Golf S is on o er for £199/month
and deposit of £5000.
The Golf E might make sense for drivers

covering many miles – fuel cost savings.
Although on a lease there are penalties for
exceeding 10k miles/year. Likely high mileage
drivers would buy a diesel.
Helmut Frik says

It is down to concernes due to
lack of experience with selling second
hand EV vehicles. If the EV sells for a
higher price than the ICE the lease rates
will change accordingly.
Bob Wallace says

[censored – no personal attacks
allowed]
Lease rates incorporate the residual value

of the vehicle post lease.
If resale value rises then lease rates

should drop.
Resale value could increase for EVs due to

their longer serviceable life and lower
operating costs.
Nigel West says

…..currently there is Government grant of £4500 towards
the cost of purchasing an EV. The Golf E quali es for the grant.
Gautam Kalghatgi says

The following on the barriers to the growth of electric vehicles might also be
of interest
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/human-toxicity-potential-other-barriers-unlimited-
growth-kalghatgi
S. Herb says
No question that if EVs take over 100% of the current and growing car
population that there will be associated problems, although I would guess that
they pale compared to pushing oil extraction to the max. The issue is not 100%.
The issue is that we have an opportunity to loosen the damaging stranglehold of
the petroleum complex on our societies. We have momentum and enthusiasm
right now, and we have to go for it. We need options.
Bob Wallace says

That article is full of fail.
It assumes new electricity will come from fossil fuels when the world is moving to
renewables and away from fossil fuels.
There are signi cant problems in the way cobalt is mined but that is not due to EVs.
That is due to a lack of adequate worker protection in the countries where the mines
are located.
Invest money in improving internal combustion engines? ICEs are a mature

technology and there’s little more that can be squeezed out of them. The
technological advances now being made are minor and complicated, making
manufacturing more expensive.
Bob Wallace says

How about a simple rebuttal?
EVs should be cheaper to manufacture and purchase than ICEVs within the next ve
years.
EVs will be cheaper to drive because they will be able to charge with o -peak
electricity. Gas would have to drop to around $1/gallon in order to be competitive. It
costs $0.40 to $0.70/gallon to re ne oil into gasoline. Transportation and distribution
runs close to $0.30/gallon. Then there’s the cost of the oil and pro ts along the chain.
There is no sustainable $1/gallon gasoline.
Charge time is not a problem. Most people drive more that the range of a long range
EV (~250 miles) in a single day. When they do they can charge while eating a meal.
People driving ICEVs will make 40 or so stops per year at lling stations and spend
several hours in total lling up. Standing beside their cars in all sorts of weather or
paying someone to stand there in their place.
The grid will clean. There is no way to clean a tailpipe. Even bio/synfuels would be
dirty to some extent. (Plus too expensive.)
Hans says
“The grid will clean. There is no way to clean a tailpipe. Even bio/synfuels
would be dirty to some extent. (Plus too expensive.)”
plus having a very poor EROEI
Nigel West says

The grid will not clean appreciably on renewables alone. Replacing
coal and nuclear with gas and renewables will not result in a clean grid.
Nuclear is needed too to clean the grid.
Helmut Frik says

It will be, without nuclear. For the price di erence between
renewables and nuclear it’s possible to send the electricity around the
world if there is too few of it locally.
Bob Wallace says

“Nuclear is needed too to clean the grid.”
Nigel, hopefully you realize that claim is nonsense.
There is nothing nuclear can do that can’t be done by a mixture of

renewables and storage.
Absolutely nothing.
Nigel West says

Bob, I agree, nothing that nuclear can do that can’t be
done by storage and renewables. You will know my view on this
that the latter would be far more expensive than nuclear and is
not feasible unless a country is rich in hydro.
So let’s not get into a disagreement on costs and feasibility
arguments again……..
Bob Wallace says

OK, Nigel. Let’s see if I have this right.
You believe that nuclear is cheaper than renewables and

storage.
And you do not want anyone to post facts to the contrary.
You believe that nuclear must be part of a grid.
You also believe, apparently, that hybrid ICEVs are better

than EVs.
Might I suggest Nigel, with all due respect, you should spend
your time on a religious site where faith is given preference
over facts.
Nigel West says

Bob, you imply I am not scienti c. Well, let us
consider the late Chief Scienti c Adviser to the UK’s
Department of Energy and CC (DECC), Professor Sir
David Mackay FRS. A professor of Physics at Cambridge,
and author of the utterly, remorselessly fact-based
book, “Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air”.
(https://www.withouthotair.com/).
He gave an interview 10 days before tragically passing

away at age 48 from cancer in which, freed from
responsibilities, he was able to be frank:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCyidsxIDtQ
Remarks about batteries (can never be anything like the

required scale to be relevant to technologies that can’t
reliably generate at peak) are at 9 minutes 50 seconds,
also “batteries are not a realistic solution/the price
would need to be 100 times less”
At minute 11.05 “… idea of powering the UK with

renewable energy is an appalling delusion”.
At 9 minutes 10 seconds in “Pay attention to

mathematics, the laws of physics, the realities of
engineering”
Minute 9.40 “we need a plan that adds up” //

“intermittency is a real problem”
Minute 9.50 “renewable proponents haven’t done the
numbers to achieve proposed solutions”
Minute 10.10 12 minutes 50 seconds – asked what he

prefers for GB generation mix, as he is at end of life and
has, as he explains (and says why), avoided ever saying
so directly previously; he says “I suppose the time has
come”, and gives the answer, CCS’d-fossil- red-power-
stations and nuclear; almost zero wind and solar, they
are in his view pointless, a waste of money if you have
something reliable which is what you need, for the
winter – you’d just have to turn down your nukes and
CCS to make room for wind and solar. They can’t
displace any fossil capacity at all.
At 16 minutes 10 seconds : he found on arriving at DECC

(now BEIS) civil servants had clearly advised ministers
not to subsidise solar, but ministers ignored them.
“Britain is one of the darkest countries in the world”.
Better to use solar where its output pro le meets
demand much better. But society always needs
reliability. “So Las Vegas can have some solar”, but he
jokes, “it will also need a nuke”.
Minute 21:40 – repeat from earlier, that “making the

numbers add up” (pretending we can cope solely with a
very high proportion of solar and wind) with unrealistic
assumptions on energy e ciency and storage, is folly
“if you can get through the winter with CCS and nuclear,
there is no point in adding any wind and solar”
Minutes 14 – 15 “society needs reliability in its electrical
system” .
Bob Wallace says

Sorry, Nigel.
I’m uninterested in Mackay’s opinion. He did not

operate as a scientist but as someone who pushed
an opinion.
I’d explain his errors but [censored – no personal

attacks allowed].
Nigel West says

Bob, that is a very weak reply. He was
a top academic from Cambridge who used his
skills to reach an informed position.
To state that a top UK scientist was just an
‘opinion pusher’ who made many errors is
absurd. Particularly when spoken by a poster
full of what are at best opinions and
unfounded predictions. Please remind us,
what engineering background do you have to
credibly claim he made errors?
Bob Wallace says

We could start with his incorrect
claims about the amount of land it would
take to install wind turbines.
October 6, 2017 at 23:49
I would bet the cost of storage is less in a few short years than
building a high priced nuclear plant that takes decades from start to
nish and which cannot be turned on and o as demand shifts during
the day.
It’s likely to maintain a mixture of natural gas for some time, but when
storage and renewable prices drop below natural gas in the next 10 to
20 years (quite possible less), it’s game, set, match.
See Stanford Prof. Tony Seba YouTube video on technology disruption

in energy and transportation for a real understanding of what’s going
on today that is just starting to rapidly change things as we know them.
Nigel West says

October 7, 2017 at 12:51
You are mixing up two subjects. Grid scale storage with
renewables, and BEVs.
Also you clearly don’t understand the huge feasibility issues and
cost of providing a 100% WWS electricity supply system. This may
help you to understand:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/business/energy-
environment/renewable-energy-national-academy-matt-
jacobson.html
Bob Wallace says

October 9, 2017 at 00:40
Your article assumes the Clack paper to be accurate.
It is, in fact, fatally awed.
The cost of a global RE energy supply? Cheaper than the

alternative.
Over the next few decades every coal, nuclear, and gas plant
will wear out. Everyone of those plants will have to be
replaced with something and wind + solar + storage is the
cheapest alternative.
The world spends $5 trillion per year on fossil fuel subsidies.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-
consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-
a-staggering-5-tn-per-year
Trillions more on obtaining fossil fuels.
Financing our move to renewables will be not at all di cult.

We’re going to save a fortune.
Information Recent Comments Recent Posts
Supporting Partners S. Herb on Investing in gas: the e ect Cyberattacks: the military considers micro
Advertise of carbon taxes, gas prices, and the grids as the answer
Privacy Policy including Cookies growth of renewables Investing in gas: the effect of carbon taxes,
Terms and conditions for posting Bas Gresnigt on IEEFA Germany: RWE’s gas prices, and the growth of renewables
content coal phaseout compensation IEEFA Germany: RWE’s coal phaseout
Comment Policy demands defy market prices compensation demands defy market prices
Bas Gresnigt on Solar energy is green.
More Information The man who wanted to change the world –
Solar panels are not. AI can portrait of a climate visionary
revolutionise their design
About us India kick-starts wholesale energy market
Five questions surrounding Germany’s
Authors reforms
coal phase-out plan - Euro Journal on
Contact Us
The compelling case for carbon
capture and storage
DGC on Solar energy is green. Solar
panels are not. AI can revolutionise
their design
Copyright © 2019 Energy Post. All Rights Reserved

Why The Electric Car Hype Is Overblown

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Why The Electric Car Hype Is Overblown

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Premium Analysis Newsletter Categories… Post an article/event

Why the electric car hype is overblown PREMIUM

fast charging station in

Sails Make A Comeback As

Can Nuclear Compete For A Bigger

Fuel costs Nike Enters The Race For

Cyberattacks: the military considers

The man who wanted to change the

More Platform Posts >>

EXCLUSIVE: Geothermal could

IEA: solar’s exponential growth could

Analysis: BP’s outlook for fossil fuels

The compelling case for carbon

EXCLUSIVE: Chinese government’s

IEA: Battery storage races to keep up

Digitalisation is changing the energy

The future for ICE drivetrains

Leo Kerr says

Nigel West says

Bob Wallace says

Are Hansen says

Gulf War I – 1990 to 1991

Gulf War II – 2003 to 2011

The US maintains a large (and expensive) military presence in the Middle

Nigel West says

Karel Beckman says

Nigel West says

Karel Beckman says

Helmut Frik says

Karel Beckman says

Bob Wallace says

Didn’t the Jews basically buy up a lot of

Just asking a history question.

Karel Beckman says

Helmut Frik says

Karel Beckman says

Bob Wallace says

It’s a lot more complex than can be

My take is that the US (I’ll leave the UK out

Helping defeat Hitler is something that I

Invading Iraq was bad.

Getting involved in Vietnam was thought

Here’s the bottom line, Karel. If other

Independence 01776 says

Independence 01776 says

And the Ford 350 is more powerful than a Tesla,

Bob Wallace says

One can subscribe to purchase all their electricity from renewable

None of the money you spend on electricity will go to a fossil fuel or

monitor this site, it may surprise you…

And Brexit was inevitable and not silly, United States of

Helmut Frik says

Bob Wallace says

The UK does not need a 45 GW connection to

The UK needs some storage just to t their

There will be periods when national wind and

Even if the UK intended to purchase 100% of

Import the average demand. Use storage to

Helmut Frik says

Bob Wallace says

That is a question that cannot be

Helmut Frik says

Bob Wallace says