Featured I love electric vehicles – and was an early adopter. But increasingly I feel duped

I admire Rowan but the first two sentences put me off:

Sadly, keeping your old petrol car may be better than buying an EV. There are sound environmental reasons not to jump just yet.​

I am too cheap to be an 'environmentalist' as minimizing operational cost is my motivation. He goes on to state:

The problem lies with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all electric vehicles: they’re absurdly heavy, many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them, and they only last about 10 years.​

To which I point out:

• absurdly heavy - not like the earlier lead acid and NiMH batteries?
• many rare earth metals - true on some of the earlier 'cell phone' battery chemistries. However, there are LiFePO battery chemistry being sold in more recent models.
• huge amounts of energy - a Union of Concerned Scientists study indicates EVs have a fraction of the energy consumed to make and operate.
• last about 10 years - not like the eternal life of cell phone and laptop batteries? This is factually wrong as LiON battery life is a function of charging cycles, charging operating range, and environmental limitations.

He goes on to limit future battery technology to only:

". . . solid-state batteries . . .Hydrogen . . ."​

Where is LiFePO and other battery chemistries being investigated? Where are the battery pack structures and management? He simply offers dead-ends of his choosing, straw men.

There is one part where we almost agree:

". . .a great asset we have in the cars that currently exist . . . In terms of manufacture, these cars have paid their environmental dues . . . if you really need a car, buy an old one and use it as little as possible. . . . development of synthetic fuel, which is already being used in motor racing; it’s a product based on two simple notions: one, . . . the environmental problem with a petrol engine is the petrol, not the engine . . . developing a fuel in Chile using wind to power . . . "​

I agree with the premise of "less bad" internal combustion engine. Hybrids that operate the engine at peak thermal dynamic efficiency comes to mind. Although he does not mentions this 'Toyota' approach. But rather he wanders off on a synthetic fuel, not a biologically grown, ethanol or other hydrocarbons which makes no economic sense. The energy loss from manufacturing synthetic gasoline from air, water, and CO{2} is ignored.

I have and continue to admire Rowan Atkinson but this is not one of his finest works.

Bob Wilson

 

As one comment summed it up, inactivist talking points.

The EV cons he brings up were shown to be of lower concern, if not debunked, years ago.

Holding onto an older car being lower cost has always been a truism, no matter how the cost is measured. But old cars eventually get scrapped, so what do they get replaced with?

There are billions of ICE vehicles out there that will be around for decades. Clean up their fuel, and their operation is cleaned up. E-fuels have their drawbacks, but grown ones have their own set of them.

• Millions of rain forest acres have been clear cut for sugar cane and oil palms.
• Corn production in the US is not environmentally benign. Fertilizer requirements contribute to the Gulf of Mexico dead zone.
• Most biofuels aren't drop in replacements to the current fleet. E10 and B5 is the limit for most. Conversions are possible, though that cost needs to be factored in with the biofuels' adoption.
  
• Those that are drop in ready are higher cost in energy and cash to make.

The main focus of e-fuels today is aviation and shipping. Two sectors in which electrification has a more limited prospect. The drive of the car side of it is in allowing the continued use of current ICE cars after fossil fuels are banned. Or allow PHEVs remain an option after that time.

 

Any car - EV or ICE - can make you feel duped. In the early 1970's - that shiny Chevy Vega sitting in our driveway comes to mind .
.

 

I've run two Prius on E85 by ignoring the 'check engine' warning light. The lamp was complaining that the fuel injection was sending in more than expected amount of fuel. I found diluting to E50 worked without the check engine light and made started easier in freezing weather. But the retail price of E85 did not make it economically feasible. Technically it worked.

I am OK with biomass created fuels but not manufactured ones.

Bob Wilson

 

i don't know the fella, but it sounds like the koch bros made a large deposit in a swiss bank account.

i wonder if he is as concerned with other things like mining bitcoin

 

It has to work for years without damaging any systems, not a few tanks.

Black Adder? Mr. Bean?

 

He needs to see what the EPA says



source and other myths debunked:

Electric Vehicle Myths | US EPA

The other mistake being made is only looking at CO2 produced in manufacturing and fuel use.
Don't forget the air pollution and more immediate negative health effects

Mike

 

A counter to the opinion piece.
Regardless of What Mr. Bean Says, EVs Are Much Better for the Environment than Gasoline Vehicles - Inside Climate News

“We’re trying to take the world to a better place here,” Hoekstra said. “We’re really trying, and this sort of cranky nitwittery really makes it harder.”

 

cranky nitwittery, perfect description. i still think bean is shilling for big oil

 

I doubt he is shilling for big oil, but ...
This is his multi million dollar polluter car collection.
Inside Mr Bean actor Rowan Atkinson's jaw-dropping car collection including £9.9m McLaren F1 and £400k Rolls Royce | The US Sun

Was he duped into buying that mcclaren, or the the bently with the tv built in? Not really trying to be environmental or frugal. Notice no electric vehicles were mentioned when they did a story on his car collection in February.

Anyone that trusts Mr. Bean on the environment or car choices is being duped or part of a conspiracy ;-)

 

someone is paying him way too much money

 

His opinion is certainly different than a lot of opinions on Prius Chat but that might be a good thing.

"Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems. Combine this, perhaps surprising, academic pathway with a lifelong passion for the motorcar, and you can see why I was drawn into an early adoption of electric vehicles. "

His credentials would rule out typical internet antagonist.

 

actually, they may be overblown, since he obviously knows very little

 

He has been an actor playing idiots for a long time. I doubt from reading his opinion piece that he actually looked into the environment or costs. I have no idea what he bought or how many miles he put on it.

I tried to look up which plug-in cost him so much money, but mr. google listed 10 more expensive cars that use a great deal of gas and are more costly to maintain.

I guess he is an expert on food that makes you a kung fu master too?

Maybe he was just writing in the character that he plays to get clicks. He suceeded.

 

Funny thing is as far as Stupid humor goes, we here enjoy Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, Monty Python, young Frankenstein - Airplane, Keystone Cops, Pet Detective Jim Carrey etc ..... but this hack Bean .... nothing.
.

 

He has the UK version of a CDL for lorries, and has even raced for a few seasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Atkinson#Cars

Same can be said about Leno. You may not have heard of him, but Atkinson is/was big in the UK.

"Inside Climate News contacted Atkinson to respond to the criticism that he was cherry-picking the evidence to present a misleading conclusion.

“Everyone cherry-picks evidence to support his or her thesis and I’m sure that your scientists and experts will be doing the same,” he said in an email. “My primary aim was to encourage debate, perhaps a more nuanced debate about the vastly complex issue of carbon emissions and the motor car than I have seen hitherto. The fact that you’re having your discussion at all is great news to me.”"
- link I posted above

His point about production emissions has been well discussed. This isn't the first time the subject has made the news rounds. Like the 'a hybrid won't save enough on fuel to cover the higher price' news pieces, it gets tiresome after a while.

 

“My primary aim was to encourage debate, perhaps a more nuanced debate about the vastly complex issue of carbon emissions and the motor car than I have seen hitherto. The fact that you’re having your discussion at all is great news to me.”"

Isn't that exactly what is happening here? It is not illegal yet to have a different view of electric vehicles and their environmental impact.

He likes to own cars that is not revolutionary.

I own a PHEV with an electric battery - I found his piece interesting and thought provoking. I appreciate the post where it was shared and am glad to have had the opportunity to read his piece, comment on it and have the chance to look at electric vehicles from another perspectives. I hope that is not illegal.

Elon Musk likes huge carbon emitting luxury planes - so what.
Inside Elon Musk's New $78 Million Jet, the Gulfstream G700 (businessinsider.com)

 

Crashed his McLaren twice getting the largest insurance payoff in british history. Crashed his ashton martin. Not sure that is every extremely expensive vehicle he has crashed.

I do wonder what plug-in he bought, and what it cost versus those two cars. My guess is insurence on the McLaren is higher per year than fuel and maintenance on his plug-in ;-)

No but he said he was duped. I don't know why he didn't just trade it in or give it to charity. What was the vehicle? How much did it cost him? He is not trying to encourage debate, he is repeating tired old points from a decade ago, when people were saying no one wants a plug-in. Maybe he bought the wrong one. I don't know, but he is another idiot rich celebrity trying to get people to pollute more by claiming what they do is environmental.

Why do people listen to him? It is because politically they are against or fearful of plug-in cars.

 

i have no problem with debate. here on priuschat, it's just fun.

in the real world, i want to see scientists debating facts and data, not opinionated actors.