Quite an extensive article but the whole premise is wrong.
Carbon Dioxide emissions do not need to be reduced at all, (Please, not Carbon, don't be lazy, or is that so as to make it sound dirty?) and do not rely on anything the Climate Change Committee claim, they are very much wrong on just about everything.
Another misconception is that electric vehicles do not contribute to such emissions, generating electricity produces a lot of CO2, they would, should the uptake increase in line with government wishes, need much more gas generation to charge them than even now. (Renewables cannot react to the extra load)
I expect you will disregard my view but it is a lot more realistic than the current fashionable view that many hold.
Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is a very minor player in influencing climate.
How many are aware that H2O is significantly stronger (X 500 or so more in concentration and absorbs and re radiates the whole infra red spectrum, while CO2 traps only a small part of it).
We have and continue to destroy our prosperity, exactly as some desire, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, to name two, largely due to using renewables to make us one of the world leaders in expensive electricity. Expensive transport and home heating is another contributor, all for no gain whatsoever.
I ran a further analysis of biomass carbon loss in the past 200 years. I accounted for the potential for restorage. 53% of biomass loss which ended up in atmospheric circulation was through the burning of biomass, but there where plenty of other often circuitous routes by which biomass ended up in circulation.
Total biomass carbon (230 gt C) in the atmosphere is very close to total fossil fuel carbon (235 gt C)- 98%. Very nearly half of all carbon in the atmosphere comes from sources other than fossil fuels. Not a story which is widely publicised, is it?
It's also worth noting that the radiative forcing from CO2 is logarithmic, because of the limited band of the spectrum which is blocked or reflected. In terms of direct forcing, the effects of a shift from 280 ppm to 560 ppm are roughly the same as the effects of a shift from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm.
This may sound purely academic, but if you break the total increase in CO2 in the atmosphere down into four quartiles, and consider only direct radiative forcing without feedbacks, then 29.05% happened in the first quartile, 26% in the second, 23.51% in the third, and 21.44%- a clear indicator that as atmospheric carbon rises, its effects lessen.
You make some good arguments, but H2O absorbs across a broader infrared spectrum, CO2’s absorption bands (e.g., 4.3 µm and 15 µm) are in critical “windows” where H2O absorption is weak. These bands trap outgoing longwave radiation effectively, making CO2 disproportionately impactful for its concentration.
I would change the argument somewhat. By 2100 if we make some fairly basic assumptions about levels of CO2 emissions, when we plug them into the climate models this equates to about 3.0C of warming, including all warming since the date that the climate scientists arbitrarily set the baseline (which is a problem in itself). However, of total warming by 2100, only a third will be directly due to CO2.
They've made the assumption that all or most additional warming to date is amplification or feedback. That's an astounding assumption. We know that temperature varies quite significantly over the short-term, from human history at a global scale. Indeed, sea levels had been consistently rising over the past 10,000 years, and this would have had its own feedback effects through mechanisms like albedo change.
The other problem is the staggering assumption that fossil fuels and industrialisation are the only human effect over the past two hundred years. That's an astounding oversight. Humans have had huge and profound impacts not related to industrialisation or fossil fuels in the past two hundred years. We've cut down 25-30% of forests. We've urbanised and built roads and infrastructure fundamentally changing albedo and causing urban heat islands. We've drained or removed 50-60% of global wetlands, and removed 35-40% of the world's mangroves and sea grasses. The IPCC attributes 6-10% of SLR to groundwater extraction- a conservative estimate of the provable figure is closer 20% of SLR. Some estimates place the figure far higher, including notable studies from climate scientists themselves.
The crucial factor is methane. The IPCC significantly underweights the impact of methane production globally. As a greenhouse gas it's far more potent. And we've made huge changes to methane levels through activities vital to human flourishing.
Bottom line. Baseline variation probably accounts for 20% of warming, fossil fuels, industrialisation and energy usage probably accounts for 50%, and methane through activities vital for humans accounts for another 30%. Crucially, the methane component is a one-time addition, because methane breaks down in the atmosphere within 12 to 15 years. It's not going away, but sooner or later human activity will reach a natural ceiling.
And the runaway climate scenario from permafrost has been discarded. A panel of climate scientists released a report stating that it was an important amplification effect, but didn't have the potential to create a runaway scenario. A great loss to dystopian sci fi writers everywhere!
Besides solar and wind are failed experiments, and hybrids are far better than EVs or ICE vehicles, at least in the PV category. The BYD Qin has a range of 2,100 km, it's cheap and it has great guarantees. With a refocusing of Western car manufacturing priorities we could do the same. Nuclear remains by far the best option. With regulatory red teams and better approach to financing (most of the risks to nuclear are political or activism related) we could reduce the price by a factor of 5, more if we include the pretty basic fact that most nuclear plants built today can last 60 to 80 years, instead of the 40 years most renewable nutjobs put in reports to prejudice the data against nuclear.
Fascinating article. Very clear. I imagine policies were considered. As per Justin C above pretty sure black cabs are more than £37k? We also need to be wary of American experience where big pickups (double cab ie 4 seater) are deductible as a business expense but are driven by people who never use them to haul tools & materials: they are just status symbols.
Good article. I used the following prompt to perform a side-by-side comparison between the BYD Qin EV and the BYD Qin hybrid:
'Please compare the BYD Qin EV with the BYD Qin hybrid. Look at all carbon costs over the presumed lifetime of both vehicles, including manufacturing, and more importantly, the inefficiency of energy conversion and charging for the EV. Assume the electrical energy is drawn from the UK composition of energy by source, and assume that this composition don't change by much in the next few decades. Make sure you differentiate between energy generated and energy utilised, given the lower levels of energy utilisation for sources like solar and wind (solar is around 15%, compared to 60% to 70% for gas, partially due to redundancy cycling requirements). Using all this perform a side by side comparison, and generate a percentage of carbon cost for the hybrid, assuming a carbon cost of 100% for the EV.'
The results showed that the carbon costs for the EV were 20,152 kgCO2e over time lifetime of the EV, and 25,200 kgCO2e over the lifetime of the hybrid- only 25% higher than the EV model. The BYD Qin hybrid is superior in a number of ways. It costs less, it has better range, and is better able to cope with colder weather. Road users express a strong preference for the hybrid because of its dual mode flexibility.
But the most compelling argument for the hybrid is electrical energy demand. If all vehicles in the UK were forced to convert to EV use tomorrow, the UK would need to find an additional 113.63% of electricity production. The hybrid energy scenario is far less alarming- 56.82%.
To be honest, I don't have much confidence that the UK government will be able to increase energy production in the UK by 50% in the next 10 years, let alone more than doubling it within 10 years. The dual mode flexibility at least preserves a contingency to keep society functioning, if the UK government catastrophically fails to deliver.
Given they've proven themselves about as useful as a chocolate fireguard on numerous occasions in the last few years, this is not an unrealistic expectation, especially given recent events in Spain.
EVs wont take off until we solve the problem of charging for people who don't have their own drive. We need to get this right before any sales incentive. If you can't charge it cheaply you won't buy it.
Re: £37k price limit for subsidies. Pretty sure Electric black cabs cost much more than this and suspect most decent sized EV vans would too. or would you have a different limit for some commercial vehicles. Just need the rules to prevent subsidies to US style trucks (eg Ford F150) with electric engines.
Quite an extensive article but the whole premise is wrong.
Carbon Dioxide emissions do not need to be reduced at all, (Please, not Carbon, don't be lazy, or is that so as to make it sound dirty?) and do not rely on anything the Climate Change Committee claim, they are very much wrong on just about everything.
Another misconception is that electric vehicles do not contribute to such emissions, generating electricity produces a lot of CO2, they would, should the uptake increase in line with government wishes, need much more gas generation to charge them than even now. (Renewables cannot react to the extra load)
I expect you will disregard my view but it is a lot more realistic than the current fashionable view that many hold.
Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is a very minor player in influencing climate.
How many are aware that H2O is significantly stronger (X 500 or so more in concentration and absorbs and re radiates the whole infra red spectrum, while CO2 traps only a small part of it).
We have and continue to destroy our prosperity, exactly as some desire, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, to name two, largely due to using renewables to make us one of the world leaders in expensive electricity. Expensive transport and home heating is another contributor, all for no gain whatsoever.
I ran a further analysis of biomass carbon loss in the past 200 years. I accounted for the potential for restorage. 53% of biomass loss which ended up in atmospheric circulation was through the burning of biomass, but there where plenty of other often circuitous routes by which biomass ended up in circulation.
Total biomass carbon (230 gt C) in the atmosphere is very close to total fossil fuel carbon (235 gt C)- 98%. Very nearly half of all carbon in the atmosphere comes from sources other than fossil fuels. Not a story which is widely publicised, is it?
It's also worth noting that the radiative forcing from CO2 is logarithmic, because of the limited band of the spectrum which is blocked or reflected. In terms of direct forcing, the effects of a shift from 280 ppm to 560 ppm are roughly the same as the effects of a shift from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm.
This may sound purely academic, but if you break the total increase in CO2 in the atmosphere down into four quartiles, and consider only direct radiative forcing without feedbacks, then 29.05% happened in the first quartile, 26% in the second, 23.51% in the third, and 21.44%- a clear indicator that as atmospheric carbon rises, its effects lessen.
You make some good arguments, but H2O absorbs across a broader infrared spectrum, CO2’s absorption bands (e.g., 4.3 µm and 15 µm) are in critical “windows” where H2O absorption is weak. These bands trap outgoing longwave radiation effectively, making CO2 disproportionately impactful for its concentration.
I would change the argument somewhat. By 2100 if we make some fairly basic assumptions about levels of CO2 emissions, when we plug them into the climate models this equates to about 3.0C of warming, including all warming since the date that the climate scientists arbitrarily set the baseline (which is a problem in itself). However, of total warming by 2100, only a third will be directly due to CO2.
They've made the assumption that all or most additional warming to date is amplification or feedback. That's an astounding assumption. We know that temperature varies quite significantly over the short-term, from human history at a global scale. Indeed, sea levels had been consistently rising over the past 10,000 years, and this would have had its own feedback effects through mechanisms like albedo change.
The other problem is the staggering assumption that fossil fuels and industrialisation are the only human effect over the past two hundred years. That's an astounding oversight. Humans have had huge and profound impacts not related to industrialisation or fossil fuels in the past two hundred years. We've cut down 25-30% of forests. We've urbanised and built roads and infrastructure fundamentally changing albedo and causing urban heat islands. We've drained or removed 50-60% of global wetlands, and removed 35-40% of the world's mangroves and sea grasses. The IPCC attributes 6-10% of SLR to groundwater extraction- a conservative estimate of the provable figure is closer 20% of SLR. Some estimates place the figure far higher, including notable studies from climate scientists themselves.
The crucial factor is methane. The IPCC significantly underweights the impact of methane production globally. As a greenhouse gas it's far more potent. And we've made huge changes to methane levels through activities vital to human flourishing.
Bottom line. Baseline variation probably accounts for 20% of warming, fossil fuels, industrialisation and energy usage probably accounts for 50%, and methane through activities vital for humans accounts for another 30%. Crucially, the methane component is a one-time addition, because methane breaks down in the atmosphere within 12 to 15 years. It's not going away, but sooner or later human activity will reach a natural ceiling.
And the runaway climate scenario from permafrost has been discarded. A panel of climate scientists released a report stating that it was an important amplification effect, but didn't have the potential to create a runaway scenario. A great loss to dystopian sci fi writers everywhere!
Besides solar and wind are failed experiments, and hybrids are far better than EVs or ICE vehicles, at least in the PV category. The BYD Qin has a range of 2,100 km, it's cheap and it has great guarantees. With a refocusing of Western car manufacturing priorities we could do the same. Nuclear remains by far the best option. With regulatory red teams and better approach to financing (most of the risks to nuclear are political or activism related) we could reduce the price by a factor of 5, more if we include the pretty basic fact that most nuclear plants built today can last 60 to 80 years, instead of the 40 years most renewable nutjobs put in reports to prejudice the data against nuclear.
Also on £37k price limit; for EVs at this price point, range and size may become a problem preventing uptake, especially for cab drivers, trades, etc.
Fascinating article. Very clear. I imagine policies were considered. As per Justin C above pretty sure black cabs are more than £37k? We also need to be wary of American experience where big pickups (double cab ie 4 seater) are deductible as a business expense but are driven by people who never use them to haul tools & materials: they are just status symbols.
So the BYD spokesperson on UK subsides was essentially right when she said they were "stupid".
Good article. I used the following prompt to perform a side-by-side comparison between the BYD Qin EV and the BYD Qin hybrid:
'Please compare the BYD Qin EV with the BYD Qin hybrid. Look at all carbon costs over the presumed lifetime of both vehicles, including manufacturing, and more importantly, the inefficiency of energy conversion and charging for the EV. Assume the electrical energy is drawn from the UK composition of energy by source, and assume that this composition don't change by much in the next few decades. Make sure you differentiate between energy generated and energy utilised, given the lower levels of energy utilisation for sources like solar and wind (solar is around 15%, compared to 60% to 70% for gas, partially due to redundancy cycling requirements). Using all this perform a side by side comparison, and generate a percentage of carbon cost for the hybrid, assuming a carbon cost of 100% for the EV.'
The results showed that the carbon costs for the EV were 20,152 kgCO2e over time lifetime of the EV, and 25,200 kgCO2e over the lifetime of the hybrid- only 25% higher than the EV model. The BYD Qin hybrid is superior in a number of ways. It costs less, it has better range, and is better able to cope with colder weather. Road users express a strong preference for the hybrid because of its dual mode flexibility.
But the most compelling argument for the hybrid is electrical energy demand. If all vehicles in the UK were forced to convert to EV use tomorrow, the UK would need to find an additional 113.63% of electricity production. The hybrid energy scenario is far less alarming- 56.82%.
To be honest, I don't have much confidence that the UK government will be able to increase energy production in the UK by 50% in the next 10 years, let alone more than doubling it within 10 years. The dual mode flexibility at least preserves a contingency to keep society functioning, if the UK government catastrophically fails to deliver.
Given they've proven themselves about as useful as a chocolate fireguard on numerous occasions in the last few years, this is not an unrealistic expectation, especially given recent events in Spain.
EVs wont take off until we solve the problem of charging for people who don't have their own drive. We need to get this right before any sales incentive. If you can't charge it cheaply you won't buy it.
Re: £37k price limit for subsidies. Pretty sure Electric black cabs cost much more than this and suspect most decent sized EV vans would too. or would you have a different limit for some commercial vehicles. Just need the rules to prevent subsidies to US style trucks (eg Ford F150) with electric engines.
Definitely. Even used ones are over £30k https://www.levc.com/approved-used/