to think that electric cars, electric radiators, hydrogen fuel cell cars are not zero emission?

[chomalungma]

First things first - I am totally for reducing a carbon footprint. I do things myself that are bad for the environment. Even starting this thread is using some energy that doesn't need to be used. I also think that electric cars, hydrogen power etc are a really good idea.

BUT

I was looking last night at getting electric radiators in the house. Inspired by the Government Green Grant. Even though this doesn't cover them.

There was a bit about a good reason to replace the traditional hot water radiators with electric radiators is that they have zero emissions of CO2 and so are 'infinitely' better for the environment.

Well - yes, in the house, there would be zero emissions. You aren't burning gas. And they are much more efficient than other radiators. But the electricity still has to be generated and we still have a lot of our electricity generated by gas turbines. We are getting better though

gridwatch.co.uk/

The same applies to electric vehicles - with the added issue that the energy costs in producing them - especially in mining the metals used for the batteries is high. And takes place in countries where they haven't got as much renewable energy sources.

Hydrogen - it's the future. Boris was in Teesside talking about the hydrogen economy. Hydrogen fuel cells. Great. Non polluting in cars - and that's a great thing for the local environment.

But you need to get hydrogen.

Most hydrogen is made by reacting methane with steam. This makes hydrogen and also leads to making CO2.

You can also make hydrogen by electrolysis of water. Which needs energy from electricity.

It's all so complicated. It's such a great idea to reduce pollution in cities. So important.

But at the moment, it seems that the CO2 is being made elsewhere - unless we move to more renewables to produce electricity (and even moving to more renewables has energy costs in that)

Really, we want to be finding ways to reduce our energy use, make things more energy efficient, reuse things that have cost energy to make.

And to be aware of all the energy costs and the ultimate life cycle in energy costs, CO2 production of everything we do.

I wonder how much energy this thread used?

YANBU and I bet half the people buying a new electric or hybrid car "for the environment" aren't averse to jetting off on long haul holidays and changing the kitchen and bathroom in their house just to fit in with fashions.

Of course the risk of hypocrisy doesn't mean we should do nothing, but you are right OP, at least until we manage to get to 100% renewables, the emissions are just be shifted. As you say, even then, there is an overhead with the manufacture and upkeep of wind turbines, solar panels etc.

reuse things that have cost energy to make.. This is why I drive an old car and have a lot of old stuff, much of which has been repaired at least once.

This has been the case with so many of the energy saving, green programmes, right back to the first energy saving light bulbs. They use far more resources to produce and are much "nastier" to dispose of.

The only way to live a greener life is to use less IMO. A friend recently posted a proud boast on FB about how he'd replaced all 36 spotlights in his huge kitchen with LED bulbs. Well yes, it might have made a tiny difference but not if you threw away functioning bulbs and not as much as having a kitchen with one halogen bulb. Now about that sports car....

Well obviously it's even better to use a bicycle and a jumper, but switching to electricity immediately removes local pollution at the road side, and makes it possible for one power station to be changed to something greener rather than a 100,000 cars.

If you want your excuse to not do it, the battery materials are going to go a lot better.

The UK electricity grid is going carbon neutral at a fast pace though, and it’s improving all the time. If you buy a car or heating system now then the electricity it uses may have a significant carbon footprint now but in five years time that will be noticeably decreased. And the more electric car batteries, hydrogen fuel cells and radiators we have the greater our ability to use them to flatten the demand curve to match production from renewables with inconsistent supply like wind.

I wouldn’t rip out my relatively new gas boiler to replace with electric now, but in a couple of years time if it needed replacing I’d look at the UK grid mix, look at the future projections and consider the electric option.

I used to have an electric car for work.

I bloody loved it and if I could afford one of my own I would

And frankly if I had a tenner for every dickhead who said ‘ooo you know they arent ZERO Emission dont you‘

Then I fuckin well could have one.

Yes. I’m not a sodding idiot. Evething has a payoff. It isn’t perfect. Id need to move into the forest and be an off—grid spoon whittler with a composing toilet.

For me the thing with EVs is roadside emissions. Generating power in a power station generates less lung destroying particulates than a petrol or Diesel engine.

I've never heard anyone say anything different

But it will change as use of green energy sources increases

@araiwa

I've never heard anyone say anything different

But it will change as use of green energy sources increases

It was just reading this blog last night about electric radiators having zero emissions and being infinitely better for the environment.

Then Boris talking about the hydrogen economy - and a massive amount of energy is needed to generate hydrogen.

It is so complicated - and the whole life cycle, all the energy costs involved just makes it more complicated.

For me the thing with EVs is roadside emissions. Generating power in a power station generates less lung destroying particulates than a petrol or Diesel engine.

But this isn't the big selling point that's being used - it's all about how much better they are for the environment overall. Whilst they probably are when taken as a whole, I think the idea is being encouraged that 'petrol/diesel badly harms the environment; electric has no impact at all'. A bit like a western country proudly boasting of paying all of its employees a very good wage, when they mean the 5% who are based in the UK in marketing and management and simultaneously turn a blind eye to the underage girls in Bangladesh on poverty wages.

As a PP said, it also makes a difference as to how long things are used for. Of course, there comes a point when very old things are grossly inefficient or even dangerous, but there are people out there who will smugly change cars or appliances every year or two, 'because the new ones are even more efficient and better for the environment', without a thought or care for the huge amount of energy that went into making the slightly worse-performing one they've just jettisoned.

There's also the trade-off that a well looked-after petrol or diesel engine can go for 250,000 or more miles, with only the actual worn-out parts needing to be replaced periodically, potentially over 20 or more years.

Aren't the batteries in electric cars only designed/expected to last for about five years, before they have to be replaced? Plus, you can proudly sell a brand new electric car with a fully-charged range of XXX miles, but the nature of batteries is that they slowly become less efficient with every charge. All well and good buying a car on the basis that it gives you 20% more than the range you need to get to work, but what if, a couple of years down the line, it gives you 5% less and conks out before you arrive.

We also need to stop the ridiculous system whereby we expect mobile phones to only last for two years before we 'upgrade' to a new one with slightly better-on-paper willy-waving specifications. It's not the emissions with phones, obviously, but the precious rare metals that we devastate wildlife habitats to harvest and then toss aside after two years only then to do it all again.

It's all a bit of a red herring, if we're serious about saving the plant, we need to buy less and travel less. This is a way to keep selling us stuff when we know we should stop.

Just like recycling persuades us that we're doing our bit when we keep buying endless packaged goods, single use plastics (which seem to be fine again now we're in a pandemic) and throw away fashion. We need to stop producing this stuff, not playing at recycling it to make us feel better.

Planet, although saving plants is a good first step

I bloody loved it and if I could afford one of my own I would

Yes, there's also the issue of cost, of course. Maybe we should only allow the wealthy to have cars and those who can't afford a new efficient one can just make do with public transport. Prince Charles has led the way by converting one of his Aston Martins to run on discarded corked wine - maybe we can all follow his lead, if we really care about the environment....

My flat hasn't got double glazing.

I could get double glazing...and it would save me money on my heating bills.

But it would take a long time to recoup the cost of that glazing - even though it would add value to my flat.

And how much energy has gone into making the double glazing in the first place vs the energy I am wasting through not having it?

(I may be over thinking this)

The point is that theycan be zero emissions.

I have solar panels so my electricity is low carbon (apart from at manufacturing) but my gas heating can never be.

In order to become lower carbon we have to both switch our production and consumption of power.

The modern world is a thoroughly capitalist one and works by encouraging people to consume, consume some more, and then even more again. Quite simply, this is unsustainable. The only answer is to consume less - make do and mend, eat local food in season, stop following fashion in clothes and homeware, etc. BUT! Your consumerism keeps people around the world in work. If we consume less, many people will not have jobs. Can we then accept modest lifestyles in fairly self-sufficient countries? I don't know the answer. The current model is unsustainable, but I can't envision a really workable alternative...

Renewables don't come without any environmental cost. Yes, we should use them where we can/have to but the most important thing we can do is use less.

Dump a functional car to replace it with an electric one? What's the environmental cost of the unecessary production and disposal? Same with boilers, light bulbs, anything that's sold to us as a way to save energy or resources is going to take a very long time to compensate for it's production.

this. Electric power can^ be generated by means free of fossil-fuels. Fossil fuels, by definition can’t.

Some of the objections to more-environmentally friendly methods are, I fear, driven by the wish to maintain the status quo rather than any real science. We do say “more” environmentally friendly. You’re not going to have power production free of environmental costs, but if we hadn’t made substantial moves towards that ‘more’ friendly we’d already be in deeper trouble than we are. It’s a question of weighing costs and controllled localised impacts v unknowing global ones. Remembering the old mantra -and priority order -of “reduce, reuse, recycle” would be valuable though.

That was supposed to follow CatherinedeBourgh btw!

Remembering the old mantra -and priority order -of “reduce, reuse, recycle” would be valuable though

Apparently there's 2 more

Rethink and Refuse

(I may be over thinking this)

Not in the least - I think a large part of the problem is many people (and even governments) under thinking things.

but if we hadn’t made substantial moves towards that ‘more’ friendly we’d already be in deeper trouble than we are

That's true.

It was the 'hydrogen' one that got me - a great fuel, zero pollutants in a crowded city - but currently needs a lot of energy to make it - or it's mainly made from methane and makes CO2.

I love the idea of using bacteria to make hydrogen. To mimic the process of photosynthesis to generate energy.

Not come across them. Refuse industrialist society? We’d all benefit from being more sustainable and locally sufficient. Again the keyword is ‘more’.

Zero emissions at the point of use is worthwhile in terms of reducing NOx and particulate pollution in cities. We're only just beginning to get an idea of the serious health problems caused at a population level by car and more particularly heavy vehicle exhausts. Even if the generation of the hydrogen or electricity isn't inherently cleaner, it's generally easier to tackle emissions at that point, even apart from them not being in population centres.

I don't think we're yet at a point where wholesale replacement of (efficient) gas boilers for central heating by electric systems is sensible. Different matter with new build, perhaps - and also building with energy efficiency in mind (positioning, size of waves to shade from summer sun but let winter sun in etc). Adding a heat pump type of electric powered heater to a room you use most so that the gas CH in the rest of the house can be run at a lower level can make sense.

As more and more of our electricity production switches to renewables, electric radiators will become less and less environmentally damagingin terms of energy.

But I don't know how damaging the production of them is. Or the production of wind turbines and solarl panels come to that.

Doing cradle-to-grave analysis of the environmental costs of anything is hugely complex. I have reservations about electric cars, because of the impact of mining all the stuff that goes into batteries, which have a relatively short lifespan.

And if you were to weigh up the environmental cost of making the new car, I wonder if round in my 20-year old Audi (Euro 6 compliant, despite its age) might not be greener, especially as we only do about 6,000 miles a year.

People flying the flag and taking the moral high ground about having an electric car also conveniently forget about the cobalt mining for the batteries.

I suppose as long as it's little black kids in the congo dying it matters less.

I think renewable energy is largely a bullshit hoax.