Study: Diesels greener than batteries

And that is just what we are doing.  Thanks for the study . The main idea of electric is that when fossil fuels run out the, upperclass rulers have a new toy to rule with. That will be the addiction to electric motors  and if that is finished after the braking down of nuclear facilities there will be tax  on breathing clean air.

We overhere in Holland  at " Track Dieselpowered motorcycles " think that optimising fuel consumption will bring mobility more for the long term. And thats with 2 wheels . And its not without fun.  We have torque at low rpm.  No wrong gear shifting trough CVT.    Low maintenance cost. Long service intervals of 15000 to 25000 km . Long engine  life span. Travel range 1 liter on 30 to 40km is normal with even better range with more relaxed driving. Ready for the new fuel GTL : Gas To liquid. That is made from natural gas of which there is plenty ..  etc. dieselmotorfiets.nl 

regards

 Erik      Track Dieselmotorcycles  Holland

Posted: 02/09/2010 at 18:27

? Dieselsgreener than batteries? 

Diesels clearly aren't greener than batteries (if you are looking at straight-forward emissions from the vehicle itself). The problem is where the electricity comes from which goes into the battery, and this isn't the choice or responsibility of the rider...

And if you're looking at the carbon footprint (so to speak) of the energy source for the bike itself (plus all the wires, anodes etc.), what about all the energy that goes into finding, extracting, transporting, cracking, refining and delivering fuels? (I don't think this was in the remit of the study to be fair)

AND are any currently common bikes actually run on diesel?????

Posted: 03/09/2010 at 13:52

@ Pie Master

If you look at the destruction to the environment caused by the mining / extraction / purification of the metals needed for the batteries and then the damage done by the manufacturing process to turn them into batteries its quite surprising.

Then add on the highly toxic chemicals contained in modern batteries run by things like the Prius and the fact that currently its so expensive to recycle them because of the chemicals that they are likely to be stockpiled for years.

At the moment Hybrid & Electric cars are marketed based on "being greener because of low emissions" yet the simple fact is that over an average lifespan of a vehicle the overall environmental damage caused from the begining to the end of its life a modern diesel engined car causes significantly less damage than the current generation of electric/hybrid vehicles.

Saying that Motorcycles with either Petrol or Diesel engines are many times less damaging so riding a bike is good for the environment

Posted: 03/09/2010 at 17:01

It's a complex one for sure - and one which I don't know a lot about (hence all the question marks in my post )

It seems that it can be clearly divided though - in terms of the actual machine, electric is blatantly 'greener', but in terms of the lifecycle of the fuel/materials etc. etc. it seems a lot less clear (for me anyway).

Posted: 06/09/2010 at 12:13

p.s. I know what I'd rather be riding anyway

Posted: 06/09/2010 at 12:14

@Nigel Aston 2

Your claim about the manufacturing and recycling cost (environmentally) of batteries being the main problem is NOT correct. Please read the study linked by the visor down article; here is the relevant graph: http://bit.ly/c5EnC6

This graph includes in black the relative cost of manufacturing and recycling the Li-Ion battery, including mining the materials (as I understood the article), compared to the other operational costs/ecological impact when running an electric vehicle. The battery is a very small part of the ecological footprint! (This already assumes an average lifespan, so it isn't overly optimistic)

I don't understand why people flock to any statement that electric vehicles are not as green as conventional engines if the research does not even support this --  a cursory reading of the article does NOT suggest that 3.9L/100km is the break-even point for a more eco-friendly diesel engine; the break-even point is 2.6L/100km. Here's the quote:
"A break even analysis shows that an ICEV would need to consume less than 3.9 L/100km to cause lower CED than a BEV or less than 2.6 L/100km to cause a lower EI99 H/A score"

The 3.9L/100km point is where the total "cumulative energy demand" is break-even; but because the average electricity mix in Europe is far cleaner than simply burning diesel, the break-even point for "ecological impact" as measured by the EI99 H/A score is only reached at 2.6L/100km.

 (I only skimmed parts of the article, if anyone is more familiar with these standards feel free to correct me.) 

My motorcycle uses nothing near 2.6L/100km; your claim that petrol or diesel engines are "many times less damaging" is not true for the vast majority of vehicles out there, even small and fuel-efficient cars. 

Owners of a Honda Super Cub, however, can sleep at ease.  

Posted: 07/09/2010 at 10:00

The other pertinent point here is that internal combustion engines have been around 100+ years, so the many industries that go into the production, care and disposal of their major components is, by now, well established. The same can't be said for electric car & their fuel cell components.

I'd imagine that the environmental impacts surrounding the lifecycle electric fuel cells would be refined and lessened as their usage became more established. Comparisons therefore seem a little unbalanced without bearing this in mind.

Another point to make.... (sorry)... would be that the disposal of fuel cells can, of course, be managed and their future reuse is always a possibility I gues, whereas the 'disposal' of hydrocarbon fuels is, effectively, their combustion within engines with know results to the environment / health etc.

Posted: 08/09/2010 at 13:13

That's all well and good, but diesel motorcycles are not readily available in the US and most parts of the world - but electrics are, and are growing.

Track's motorcycles are cool, but not available outside of Holland. Hayes makes deisel converted KLR650s, but sells them only to the military.

Considering that all countries are moving to lower politing sources of electricity for the long term, electric vehicles will continue to get "cleaner" per mile. 

For those of us with home solar arrays to charge our electric motorcycles, we are already far cleaner than diesels or gasoline will ever be.

Posted: 05/10/2010 at 16:42

Did any of the commenters read the study?

The study found that the creation and disposal of the battery powered vehicle did not have a worse environmental impact than an ICE vehicle as many commenters are theorizing.

It also concluded:

"All the facts taken together, the results of the LCA, the various sensitivity analyses, the modeling applied for EOL, the assumption for the used electricity mix, etc., suggest that E-mobility is environmentally beneficial compared to conventional mobility."

Posted: 05/10/2010 at 17:43

Diesel/electric anyone?  See the Jaguar Xc75, a hybrid sports car using electric motors, 1 in each wheel, battery pack and 2 small gas turbine generators from Bladon Jets for extended range and performance.  Something like 28g/km CO2 and sub 13.5s 1/4 mile at >155mph, 560 miles range...

Turbine can run any hydrocarbon, including chip fat, so on your bike, you could creep around town, down to the chippy, fill the tank then light up when the road opens!  I doubt that you'd need an Akrapovich to feel manly, either.

Posted: 05/10/2010 at 18:14

A regards electric vehicles being new tech...Not strictly true, electric vehicles were running before internal combustion and the technology is extremely mature. There has been a pressing need for high torque high efficiency electric motors for over 100 years and the technology was extremely important during both world wars...Lives depended on efficient motors and good battery charge density and longevity...Can we say 'Submarine'!
What has transformed the electric motor has been the use of rare earth magnets. That's why you now get electric flying toy planes and helicopters. There are however RARE earths...i.e. not common...

What hasn't changed significantly enough is the charge density of the battery. Yes, Li Ion is better than lead Acid, but not by that much and the technology is mature, there are only relatively small increments in performance improvement. a new technology leaps forward...Look at powered flight from 1903 to 1918 for instance. from the first flight to the Sopwith Camel, or a mere 22 years later the first jet flight...THAT's how fast an emerging technology advances. The original '90's Honda Insight hybrid is still the most efficient production hybrid car ever made and that tech is 15 years old now. My 2000 Panasonic Electric bike again is slightly better now than it was when made because it has a better battery, but it isn't a HUGE difference.
What IS of concern is the longevity of these EV's. I drive a 23 year old turbo-diesel. It gets a steady 55 mpg and it has done around 300,000 miles. The point being it is 23 years old. How many batteries would a 23 year old EV have used to get there...4 sets...At what cost environmentally..?

Fuel cells...Hmm...Ever costed the process of extraction hydrogen on a mass scale?

While EV's make some kind of sense in a society where we discard our possessions every 5 years or so on a whim (or because manufacturers build the quality down to ensure the product is living on borrowed time past it's warranty) there is some kind of parity, but it is quite feasible to build a diesel car (running if it likes on fuel grown from plants) which would last literally for the lifetime of the owner or longer ...galavanised steels, decent bearings in suspension parts, and so on and over longer periods of time, there is no way on earth an EV's power source would be able to match that...The best batteries in the world are found in subs...they have a 20 year life span and are built to quality levels you simply couldn't afford (or economically actually move around!) in a car...the quantity and purity of lead alone in each cell would make the cost prohibitive, and modern lightwight rare earth batteries are not only extremely limited in their charge cycle capabilities (5000 cycles is considered absolutely the ragged edge of the chemistries ability) but the metals used to make the cells are very expensive, a finite resource, and very expensive to recover.

Personally I think for the last 100 years we have enjoyed an unprecedented ability to travel effortlessly wherever and whenever we like. At no other point in our history has this been possible and it's all down to a little puddle of oil left on the planet some millions of years ago.When it's gone or too expensive to fritter away, we'll be lucky if, as a race, we have anywhere near as much freedom. I think we are going to see a lot more mass transit solutions and ultimately a lot less personal transport options....I think we, today, are living at the tail end of the golden age of transport. In 100 years things will be a lot different...Buy a damned good bicycle while there is the energy to cheaply manufacture the steels!...Your grandchildren will thank you for it!

Posted: 07/12/2011 at 11:15