I was hoping for more, but sadly it's just another hydrogen puff piece.
Also in the middle he weirdly conflates length of first ownership with total vehicle lifespan. He compares it to "fast fashion," acting as if the cars were being thrown in the trash instead of resold and used for another 10+ years.
I guess there's a reason we don't look to actors for our transport and environmental policy.
Actors buying electric cars typically do so to appear fashionable or environmentally conscious. The exception would be the legitimate car enthusiasts/gear heads/petrol heads who buy electric cars because of their engineering possibilities.
(Or Londoners like the author of The Guardian piece who can avoid the congestion charge by driving an EV or hybrid.)
He's no fool on the engineering side and remains friends | connected with others that he studied with who have gone on to have some serious careers in research and industry.
I've had several evenings with him in Australia via a mutual friend who shared math professors and a pipe organ with him back in the day.
Atkinson is a pretty heavyweight knowledgeable car guy and as he says in the article has a university degree in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems.
I think the problem with some BEV owners, (probably due to the endless virtue signalling high pressure guilt sales models) is their almost complete lack of understanding of the issues Atkinson discussed here, or in some cases an almost wilful refusal to accept basic logic, physics and alternatives.
He didn't bring up fire risks which I consider a rapidly escalating problem as more BEVs are sold. (Jaguar are having to recall their ipace SUV due to battery fire risks this week as the latest example)
Tata Steel own jlr now, most 70s 80s jags used Bosch electrical components, typically shared with the various German brands. They definitely skimped on wiring quality in the late 70s, it nearly killed them until Ford rescued them.
The issue with the current recall appears to be with LG Energy Solution South Korea batteries and the jlr Battery management code rather than a hardware issue. Who knows imo modern vehicles are far to complex
> I think the problem with some BEV owners, (probably due to the endless virtue signalling high pressure guilt sales models) is their almost complete lack of understanding of the issues Atkinson discussed here, or in some cases an almost wilful refusal to accept basic logic, physics and alternatives.
Thank you for pointing this out. It is so tiresome to see repeated "You should charge at home". But what if you can't charge at home? Like 50% of people in EU living in apartments can't charge at home? Let's just ignore this glaring issue with BEV?
What about the issue that charging outside of home is equally or more expensive than taking gas, but on top of that you are wasting much more of your own time in order to facilitate charging.
And let's not forget on unique application for almost each charger stall and each app has uniquely crap UX. Why do I even need an app? Why isn't there contactless/NFC payment terminal? Vending machines have them, why charging stalls don't?
>Atkinson is a pretty heavyweight knowledgeable car guy and as he says in the article has a university degree in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems.
Apparently none of that stopped him from thinking that cars get thrown in the crusher after the first owner is done.
FTA:
>Currently, on average we keep our new cars for only three years before selling them on, driven mainly by the ubiquitous three-year leasing model. This seems an outrageously profligate use of the world’s natural resources when you consider what great condition a three-year-old car is in. ... It’s sobering to think that if the first owners of new cars just kept them for five years, on average, instead of the current three, then car production and the CO2 emissions associated with it, would be vastly reduced.
Far from "vastly reducing" CO2, duration of first ownership has almost no effect. Total vehicle lifespan (not just the first owner) is what actually has a huge effect on lifecycle CO2.
With such a glaring and elementary logic error, it's impossible to take anything Atkinson writes seriously.[0]
Besides that, all his points are just regurgitating the same tired anti-EV talking points we've been hearing for 15+ years now:
"Hydrogen is right around the corner!" (please ignore how the unavoidably terrible thermodynamic efficiency causes unavoidably terrible per-mile economics)
"Or e-gas!" (ditto)
"Or combustion hydrogen!" (even harder ditto)
"Batteries have some problems, don't you know?" (Nirvana Fallacy; nothing's perfect, but batteries are already better than the alternatives and improving fast)
"Batteries are improving fast so we shouldn't make EVs yet." (why do you think EV battery technology is improving so fast?)
The "support" for these claims is invariably cherry-picked, like the fact that manufacturing emissions are 70% greater, while ignoring the fact that EVs more than pay this back in reduced operating emissions (meaning EVs have lower total lifecycle emissions overall).
So like I said, nothing beyond an extremely typical hydrogen puff piece, which are always (and always have been) just anti-EV puff pieces in disguise.
[0] to be fair, perhaps Atkinson actually knows this and he is 'just' making his argument disingenuously; in that case his word has even less credibility
You’re own anti-hydrogen tirade is equally ignorant. A fuel cell is an electrochemical system just like a li-ion battery. It has more or less the same basic pros and cons. This includes efficiency, and we can expect eventual parity between fuel cells and conventional batteries on this issue.
Which is why so many in the industry are pretty convinced that it will be hydrogen vehicles as the path forward beyond BEVs. They are EVs without the enormous raw material needs, and have both longer ranges and refuel like ICE cars.
>This includes efficiency, and we can expect eventual parity between fuel cells and conventional batteries
This is completely unphysical, and reveals that your knowledge goes no deeper than "fuel cells are electrochemical systems."
In any proton exchange membrane you (by definition) lose 50% of the theoretical chemical energy as the proton crosses the membrane. Some fuel cells try to use this waste heat somehow, which is how they try to claim >50% efficiency.
>Which is why so many in the industry are pretty convinced that it will be hydrogen vehicles as the path forward beyond BEVs.
No, fuel cells are nothing more than a shiny distraction for legacy ICE makers to wave in front of regulators, in a desperate attempt to delay their disruption by EVs.
For this purpose, the fact that fuel cells are fundamentally unworkable is a feature, not a bug. Fuel cells will never threaten their ICE profit center, but because their unworkability is non-obvious the legacy automakers can still make a case that's plausible enough to fool (non-technical) regulators.
>They are EVs without the enormous raw material needs
If they could figure out how to make a long-lived fuel cell without platinum, maybe that would be true.
> This is completely unphysical, and reveals that your knowledge goes no deeper than "fuel cells are electrochemical systems."
> In any proton exchange membrane you (by definition) lose 50% of the theoretical chemical energy as the proton crosses the membrane. Some fuel cells try to use this waste heat somehow, which is how they try to claim >50% efficiency.
Not to mention that you're own claims are factually wrong since efficiencies exceeding 50% have already been obtain before any heat reuse.
> No, fuel cells are nothing more than a shiny distraction for legacy ICE makers to wave in front of regulators, in a desperate attempt to delay their disruption by EVs.
Fuel cells cars are literally EVs. This profound misunderstanding of the facts suggests that you are working entirely off of BEV propaganda. Your claims are pure gibberish and nonsensical.
Also, synfuels and hydrogen-ICE cars have been tested now. So it isn't even a motivation anymore, since ICE cars can also be zero emissions. In fact, pro-BEV bullshit is permanently stuck in the mid-2000s, not realizing that technology has long since moved on.
> If they could figure out how to make a long-lived fuel cell without platinum, maybe that would be true.
>You are suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome. It's already been proven that fuel cells can attain 100% efficiency.
>Not to mention that you're own claims are factually wrong since efficiencies exceeding 50% have already been obtain before any heat reuse.
Apparently you missed the part where I specified proton exchange membrane fuel cells.
Spoiler: all the EV fuel cells out there are PEM design.
There's gotta be some sort of inviolable internet rule that the first person to mention Dunning-Kruger in a discussion is the person who most egregiously suffers from it.
>Fuel cells cars are literally EVs. This profound misunderstanding of the facts...
::eyeroll:: Dramatic much?
I said EVs instead of BEVs. Big deal.
We both knew exactly what I meant. Only one of us chose to disingenuously clutch their pearls about such a pedantic, nitpicking correction.
Since you're evidently so worried that I might have intellectual deficiencies in this area: yes, I was aware that fuel cell cars are electric vehicles. Thank you for your concern.
>Also, synfuels and hydrogen-ICE cars have been tested now.
...and the efficiency (and thus the economics) is terrible, just like I said.
>Platinum use is comparable to a catalytic convertor
...and catalytic converters don't scale to the entire world's vehicle fleet either, as India and China both amply demonstrate.
Don't be fooled by their (relatively recent) laws requiring them for automobiles. Both nations are still heavily dependent on large two- and three-wheeled fleets, which lack converters.
Hydrogen fuel cell, coupled potentially with ammonia transportation, and airlines using hydrogen engines, might make it economically as a way to export solar.
Though don't discount finding alternative metals to lithium for batteries.
He's definitely been duped, but not by electric vehicles.
> I used to be with ‘it/cars’, but then they changed what ‘it/cars’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it/cars’ anymore and what’s ‘it/cars’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you! -- Grandpa Simpson
You should keep old ICE cars if you don't drive very much, or sell them to someone who is in a similar situation.
If you actually drive an average amount you should definitely get an EV for the (local and global) environment. Plus lower TCO, and less maintenance, and less fossil fuel imports, better handling, etc.
17 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 49.2 ms ] threadAlso in the middle he weirdly conflates length of first ownership with total vehicle lifespan. He compares it to "fast fashion," acting as if the cars were being thrown in the trash instead of resold and used for another 10+ years.
I guess there's a reason we don't look to actors for our transport and environmental policy.
(Or Londoners like the author of The Guardian piece who can avoid the congestion charge by driving an EV or hybrid.)
I've had several evenings with him in Australia via a mutual friend who shared math professors and a pipe organ with him back in the day.
I think the problem with some BEV owners, (probably due to the endless virtue signalling high pressure guilt sales models) is their almost complete lack of understanding of the issues Atkinson discussed here, or in some cases an almost wilful refusal to accept basic logic, physics and alternatives.
He didn't bring up fire risks which I consider a rapidly escalating problem as more BEVs are sold. (Jaguar are having to recall their ipace SUV due to battery fire risks this week as the latest example)
The issue with the current recall appears to be with LG Energy Solution South Korea batteries and the jlr Battery management code rather than a hardware issue. Who knows imo modern vehicles are far to complex
Thank you for pointing this out. It is so tiresome to see repeated "You should charge at home". But what if you can't charge at home? Like 50% of people in EU living in apartments can't charge at home? Let's just ignore this glaring issue with BEV?
What about the issue that charging outside of home is equally or more expensive than taking gas, but on top of that you are wasting much more of your own time in order to facilitate charging.
And let's not forget on unique application for almost each charger stall and each app has uniquely crap UX. Why do I even need an app? Why isn't there contactless/NFC payment terminal? Vending machines have them, why charging stalls don't?
FTA:
Far from "vastly reducing" CO2, duration of first ownership has almost no effect. Total vehicle lifespan (not just the first owner) is what actually has a huge effect on lifecycle CO2.With such a glaring and elementary logic error, it's impossible to take anything Atkinson writes seriously.[0]
Besides that, all his points are just regurgitating the same tired anti-EV talking points we've been hearing for 15+ years now:
"Hydrogen is right around the corner!" (please ignore how the unavoidably terrible thermodynamic efficiency causes unavoidably terrible per-mile economics)
"Or e-gas!" (ditto)
"Or combustion hydrogen!" (even harder ditto)
"Batteries have some problems, don't you know?" (Nirvana Fallacy; nothing's perfect, but batteries are already better than the alternatives and improving fast)
"Batteries are improving fast so we shouldn't make EVs yet." (why do you think EV battery technology is improving so fast?)
The "support" for these claims is invariably cherry-picked, like the fact that manufacturing emissions are 70% greater, while ignoring the fact that EVs more than pay this back in reduced operating emissions (meaning EVs have lower total lifecycle emissions overall).
So like I said, nothing beyond an extremely typical hydrogen puff piece, which are always (and always have been) just anti-EV puff pieces in disguise.
[0] to be fair, perhaps Atkinson actually knows this and he is 'just' making his argument disingenuously; in that case his word has even less credibility
Which is why so many in the industry are pretty convinced that it will be hydrogen vehicles as the path forward beyond BEVs. They are EVs without the enormous raw material needs, and have both longer ranges and refuel like ICE cars.
In any proton exchange membrane you (by definition) lose 50% of the theoretical chemical energy as the proton crosses the membrane. Some fuel cells try to use this waste heat somehow, which is how they try to claim >50% efficiency.
No, fuel cells are nothing more than a shiny distraction for legacy ICE makers to wave in front of regulators, in a desperate attempt to delay their disruption by EVs.For this purpose, the fact that fuel cells are fundamentally unworkable is a feature, not a bug. Fuel cells will never threaten their ICE profit center, but because their unworkability is non-obvious the legacy automakers can still make a case that's plausible enough to fool (non-technical) regulators.
If they could figure out how to make a long-lived fuel cell without platinum, maybe that would be true.> In any proton exchange membrane you (by definition) lose 50% of the theoretical chemical energy as the proton crosses the membrane. Some fuel cells try to use this waste heat somehow, which is how they try to claim >50% efficiency.
You are suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome. It's already been proven that fuel cells can attain 100% efficiency. https://www.dynamictidalpower.eu/resources/Documenten/Maximu...
Not to mention that you're own claims are factually wrong since efficiencies exceeding 50% have already been obtain before any heat reuse.
> No, fuel cells are nothing more than a shiny distraction for legacy ICE makers to wave in front of regulators, in a desperate attempt to delay their disruption by EVs.
Fuel cells cars are literally EVs. This profound misunderstanding of the facts suggests that you are working entirely off of BEV propaganda. Your claims are pure gibberish and nonsensical.
Also, synfuels and hydrogen-ICE cars have been tested now. So it isn't even a motivation anymore, since ICE cars can also be zero emissions. In fact, pro-BEV bullshit is permanently stuck in the mid-2000s, not realizing that technology has long since moved on.
> If they could figure out how to make a long-lived fuel cell without platinum, maybe that would be true.
Platinum use is comparable to a catalytic convertor: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bosch-ev-fuel-cells-less-...
It is not an issue to begin with.
Spoiler: all the EV fuel cells out there are PEM design.
There's gotta be some sort of inviolable internet rule that the first person to mention Dunning-Kruger in a discussion is the person who most egregiously suffers from it.
::eyeroll:: Dramatic much?I said EVs instead of BEVs. Big deal.
We both knew exactly what I meant. Only one of us chose to disingenuously clutch their pearls about such a pedantic, nitpicking correction.
Since you're evidently so worried that I might have intellectual deficiencies in this area: yes, I was aware that fuel cell cars are electric vehicles. Thank you for your concern.
...and the efficiency (and thus the economics) is terrible, just like I said. ...and catalytic converters don't scale to the entire world's vehicle fleet either, as India and China both amply demonstrate.Don't be fooled by their (relatively recent) laws requiring them for automobiles. Both nations are still heavily dependent on large two- and three-wheeled fleets, which lack converters.
Hydrogen fuel cell, coupled potentially with ammonia transportation, and airlines using hydrogen engines, might make it economically as a way to export solar.
Though don't discount finding alternative metals to lithium for batteries.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28238-3
> I used to be with ‘it/cars’, but then they changed what ‘it/cars’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it/cars’ anymore and what’s ‘it/cars’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you! -- Grandpa Simpson
You should keep old ICE cars if you don't drive very much, or sell them to someone who is in a similar situation.
If you actually drive an average amount you should definitely get an EV for the (local and global) environment. Plus lower TCO, and less maintenance, and less fossil fuel imports, better handling, etc.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/21272619/inside-mr-bean-rowa...