On a coach that was made in China, no doubt with extremely lax environmental controls when it came to production of all parts.

Electric cars are no doubt great to drive, and will be important going forward, but the idea that they [vehicles made using current battery technology] need to replace all cars, and will improve our environmental footprint if we do so, is misguided.

I disagree, provided that we don't bin current ones to replace them with EVs.

If current ICE offerings get replaced with EVs as they come to the end of their natural life then I cannot fathom how they can be environmentally worse over their lifecycle, even with current battery tech (which will hopefully improve significantly over the next decade).

Couple that with a better grid management system (which, admittedly, is not without its challenges) and we have the makings of a very powerful tool for emissions reduction.

As usual, you can find a study to quote whatever your opinion is but as the grid goes greener (admittedly with increasing difficulty if we don't invest in decent nuclear) then transport-related emissions should go down even more.

DOI: I drive an EV and cannot ever see myself willingly go back to ICE.

>I cannot fathom how they can be environmentally worse over their lifecycle, even with current battery tech

I think you're suffering from a lack of imagination, in that case.

An ICE is basically a lump of metal, that is easy to recycle into high-grade products at the end of its life. It also produces airbourne pollution, which is not great.

An EV needs lithium and cobalt, among other things, to make its battery pack. The mining of those minerals is incredibly destructive and unsustainable in its current form, and the disposal and any potential recycling are currently unsolved questions. We also have to condsider all the additional electronics present in an EV, as well as all of the charging points, all of which take a lot of energy and resources to manufacture, and have no good way to be recycled. To see how we "recycle" electronics, take a look at some of the e-waste "recycling" centres around the world. Don't forget the obligatory smartphone, as you can't go anywhere without the car's app! On the upside, EVs make very little pollution at their point of use.

You seem to be ignoring the just-as-equally incredibly destructive, unsustainable and energy-intensive process of drilling for oil. And not just the oil you burn, but all the lubricants over the course of the ICE's lifetime (EVs do use some, obviously, but only a fraction).

EVs are just as much of a lump pf metal, with a smaller, less heavy drive train. The battery pack is the "big lump of metal" that really needs improvement, but that's happening gradually.

ICE vehicles use just as many electronics as EVs, how do you think you can get the insane levels of precision and fuel-air ratios in current ICEs?

I don't know about the recycling of charging points, especially compared to the recycling of petrol pumps? Do they fail often? A petrol pump is a mechanical device, so I would expect it to fail relatively often as well (but, as I said, I have no data to make up my mind on that one).

>You seem to be ignoring the just-as-equally incredibly destructive, unsustainable and energy-intensive process of drilling for oil.

No, drilling for oil is not great, although the actual extraction process in most places is relatively environmentally "clean". It's also not energy-intensive in the way that producing an EV battery pack is. Oil provides its own energy source (and it's only a few % that get used between well and petrol pump).

Mining, refining, and assembling an EV battery pack takes a great deal of energy from an external source. When I see the first lithium plant powered by solar and wind turbines, then I'll change my mind.

Point is - EVs are not a clear environmental win.

> The battery pack is the "big lump of metal"

An EV battery pack is not a "big lump of metal". It's a metal box containing all sorts of complex structures and compounds, that is practically impossible to recycle. At the moment, what pilot recycling plants do exist usually don't bother extracting the lithium, as it's just not feasible. If you say "it'll be feasible once natural deposits start running out", then you're also agreeing that the price of EV battery packs will also go up.

>ICE vehicles use just as many electronics as EVs

ICE cars do have a lot of (in my opinion) un-necessary electronics, including all the infotainment systems and the like. If we really did want ICE engines to be run to within an inch of their lives for emissions reasons, the actual amount of sensor data processing required is fairly trivial and could easily be performed by practically any microcontroller. All the rest is just the junk that we seem to demand when buying cars.

EVs by their very nature have a whole lot more electronics - how do you think the battery pack and motor is controlled?

>Do they fail often? A petrol pump is a mechanical device, so I would expect it to fail relatively often as well

It's interesting how many times this idea is trotted out, despite the overwhelming experience most people have that it's the electronics that fail and cause an item to be scrapped, and not the mechanicals. Again, the bulk of a fuel pump is metal, which is actually recyclable, unlike electronic devices.

So let's all just walk, eh? Problem solved.

In practical terms the ICE system is reaching the end of the road in terms of technical sophistication and efficiency, but EV technology is just getting going.

If we must have personal transportation vehicles capable of shifting us and our friends 500km cross country then, on the face of it, there seems a lot more potential for doing that relatively sustainably using electricity than using hydrocarbons.

Or, we could all just walk - it really would sort out a lot of our problems.

Electric motors powered by batteries is very old tech. I'd be curious to know exactly where you think any efficiencies could be gained. All of the steps in the power transmission and conversion are running at 80%+ efficiency, and using the latest in SMPSU tech (which is also from a long line of development).

The only real remaining potential development is battery technology. As it stands right now, it's not clear exaxctly how we are going to get enough minerals to make all of our EV battery packs, nor what we will do with those packs at the end of their lives.

>So let's all just walk, eh? Problem solved.

If we are really living through a climate catastrophe that needs immediate and drastic action to save the planet, it would be much more credible if we were asked to walk, instead of all going out and buying fancy new cars.

You are right - the unsustainable part is our expectation that we can sit inside a heavy metal box and convey ourselves as far as we like quite cheaply. I suspect that the drive towards EVs is just a (fairly expensive, for the end users) way to adjust our expectations of how far we can personally travel. I already cycle everywhere if possible, so I'd like to skip that step.

sit inside a heavy metal box

Actually, that's one thing that's always intrigued me about the current EVs; how much they resemble the traditional ICE vehicles.

And before someone calls me out for being a twat . why on earth are we not making smaller lightweight EVs built out of modern, strong materials that will still carry a battery but will be more suitable size and weight. Maybe we could achieve more mileage/less anxiety if we did.

Seriously do we really need an electric version of the urban tractors we apparently need now?

Indeed. Funny how the answer to the Climate Catastrophe appears to be "you need to radically change how much you spend on things", and not "you need to radically change your lifestyle".

Because the 'car industry' is fundamentally conservative, i.e. much prefers to maintain the status quo while it wrings every last penny out of the infrastructure it has very expensively put in place, whilst maintaining shareholder interest.

There is much more scope for 'disruption' by radical players using electric tech than there is with ICE technology, but then the 'customers' tend to be conservative too. It can be a difficult chicken and egg conundrum to break through.

Witness British housing as another example of the unholy symbiosis between 'big developers' and 'customers'. People's idea of what constitutes a 'house' is generally very restricted, something that is actively reinforced by the big developers, who are loath to do anything that might endanger their ability to build and sell crap houses at rip-off prices. The 'market' knows what a 'house' is, and has very low expectations, because, on the whole, they know nothing else.

True, although it must strike you as odd that the car manufacturers seem to be doing just fine, as they sell (and increasingly, rent) us ever more expensive cars.

I also don't see how "radical players" can "disrupt" the EV market. The supply chains for all the essential EV components are truly huge and global. If anything, you could argue that it will favour the entrenched incumbents.

In summary, the idea that the "legacy" car manufacturers are quaking in their boots at the introduction of EVs is pretty silly. Do you really think VW, BMW, and Mercades-Benz are going to be totally broadsided by each round of new EU regulations??

'Electric' doesn't just mean 'battery', nor does it imply a 'heavy steel box' - that is mere convention, and convenience for the mass producers.

'Battery' tech may be, as you suggest, near the limits of its development - it's been around longer the ICE - but we don't really know, because real R&D has only been spent on it relatively recently.

'Fuel cell' tech may have considerable more scope for development, but again, we don't really know.

What we do know is that ICE tech, short of switching to sustainably produced hydrogen, is almost certainly at the end of the line - technically and ecologically.

Bikes are great - I use one myself, but struggle to cover 500k in a convenient length of time, much less with family on board, plus the luggage.

My God, we may have to change the way we live to save the planet - say it isn't so!

My God, we may have to change the way we live to save the planet - say it isn't so!

It would be great if that was the official line, and not "you need to buy all this new tech so you can keep your existing life".

I've already made changes to my life that I believe make a significant reduction in my environmental impact, and I resent being forced to buy new things.

" shifting us and our friends 500km cross country then "

And how many affordable electric cars can manage a range of even half of that? Sure, my journey to work and back is 30km which is well within range of any electric car, but going shopping is twice that, and this is where things start to fall down with some cars claiming 75km but that's in perfect conditions with a new battery, not "rain and a bunch of roundabouts and hills with a two year old battery".

Perhaps a hybrid would be a better solution? User electric for the short hop stuff, and switch to dinosaur juice for range.

>Perhaps a hybrid would be a better solution? User electric for the short hop stuff, and switch to dinosaur juice for range.

Frankly, that makes no sense. You'd be asking a tiny battery and motor to lug around all of the ICE stuff too, just for a few miles. You may as well buy a small EV and a larger ICE. Or, an ebike and an ICE. Or, just cycle.

Downvoted because I feel that you aren't thinking things through. Yes, hybrids are a complicated solution. But for rural residents they at least represent a solution. And for rural residents in colder climates, the hybrid ICE component provides waste heat to warm the cabin and defrost the windshield -- something that would otherwise have to be done by an already marginal battery system. Hybrids do demonstrably use significantly less fuel (of which there is not an unlimited supply) than pure ICE in similar vehicles.

I'm not against electric vehicles BTW. There are many use cases where they look like a quite good idea. What I am against is the practice of setting ambitious (i.e. almost certainly unrealistic) goals without anything that remotely resembles competent planning. Where, for example, will the electricity to run all these green vehicles come from? Almost certainly not from wind and solar. The problems with those as a dominant energy source are legion. My fear is that it will come from hastily planned and built nuclear power plants. I'm not against nuclear power either. But the prospect of a world with perhaps 10,000 or 20,000 hastily built nuclear plants does make me just the slightest bit nervous.

Do keep in mind that most of the human race currently lives in developing countries and THEIR energy demands will surely increase dramatically in future decades -- a reality that tends to be ignored.

But for rural residents they at least represent a solution.

How so? What does 30 miles of electric range get you, if you live out in the country? And why are you using the use case of a small minority of car users, to justify an entire class of car?

And for rural residents in colder climates... It would still be more efficient to run an EV, and have a little diesel heater in the cabin.

Do keep in mind that most of the human race currently lives in developing countries and THEIR energy demands will surely increase dramatically in future decades -- a reality that tends to be ignored.

It sure does. Where on earth (literally!) is all of the energy and raw material going to be found, to provide every human with an EV?

FWIW, I'm much more on the "we need to drastically change our lifestyle" side of things, than "we need to buy shiny new things that might fix the problem". I own an ICE car, and my annual mileage is probably half the UK average. That alone is as good as buying an EV for the average person!

unlike electronic devices

This is a huge problem. Actually many devices could be easily recycled if manufacturers were forced to give away documentation. I can give a classic example of Apple proprietary charging chip that it was only changed from a commonly available one, to restrict 3rd party repair. Imagine how many of those motherboards gets disposed of instead of recycled. If there was documentation available for those chips, these could be easily removed and put back on the market and repurposed.

Another problem with electronics is that it is difficult to get such recycled parts back into new products.

Turning that oil into products is energy intensive.

EV are a clear environmental win for cities, they will lead to cleaner air and a quieter environment.

An EV needs lithium and cobalt, among other things, to make its battery pack. The mining of those minerals is incredibly destructive and unsustainable in its current form, and the disposal and any potential recycling are currently unsolved questions.

Recycling is largely solved. It will be completely sorted in the next 5-10 years, which is actually fine. Obviously there's a lot of virgin material extraction at the moment for the growth market, but that will tail off as the market growth slows and recycled material makes up a larger share.

Battery lifecycle will look something like:

* New cells deployed in cars

* Car reaches EOL; battery cells (with at least 70% capacity) redeployed to grid-scale battery farms

* Genuinely knackered cells recycled into fresh cells.

We also have to condsider all the additional electronics present in an EV, as well as all of the charging points, all of which take a lot of energy and resources to manufacture,

Additional electronics? Have you any idea how many sensors and black box electronics are packed into ICE vehicles? The current semiconductor shortage isn't just affecting EV production!

As for charging points... they take about the same energy and resource to manufacture as a petrol pump. The benefit is that you don't have to send tankers full of flammable liquid (which occasionally crash) to fill holding tanks (which sometimes flood or leak into the environment).

They also fit conveniently into existing car park layouts or onto the exterior wall of a house instead of having to set up a dedicated forecourt facility.

One might argue that petrol stations are a "sunk cost" in hardware terms, but this isn't really true as pumps are upgraded and replaced periodically and also require a great deal of maintenance.

Recycling is largely solved.

That's nice. I'd like to hear of any current companies that claim the same, especially any that have found a way to economically extract the lithium from used cells.

Battery lifecycle will look something like:

* New cells deployed in cars

* Car reaches EOL; battery cells (with at least 70% capacity) redeployed to grid-scale battery farms

* Genuinely knackered cells recycled into fresh cells.

You're a true optimist if you think anything like that can be achieved in 5-10 years. How do you envisage used battery cells being incorporated into grid-scale storage? Despite assurances that all the latest emissions regs are for our own good, there's nothing at all mandating manufacturers make compatible battery packs, which is absolutely key to making EVs anything like environmentally friendly or sustainable. You certainly wouldn't be able to dis-assemble them to extract the cells. It would take too long, and the cells within are of vastly different designs as well as lifecycle state. Not only that, but packs are generally not designed to be disassemblable, and you can't just go at them with hammer and chisel.

You might be able to plug the entire pack into different grid storage sections, arranged by pack manufacturer, but the problem of balancing 10,000's of packs of all different states of life is quite considerable. You'd also need the pack manufacturer to make you some kind of enormous custom charging system.

Finally, the fire/explosion risk of a site running humungous numbers of used lithium cells as a giant battery would just be off the scale.

There is also absolutely no sign of anything like this being planned or implemented, which I would say is the greatest obstacle to it actually happening within a decade (or two).

You then make recycling sound easy. I refer you to my first sentence in this comment.

Additional electronics? Have you any idea how many sensors and black box electronics are packed into ICE vehicles? The current semiconductor shortage isn't just affecting EV production!

I do, and almost all of them are un-necessary. Oddly enough, new regulations keep demanding things like mandatory backup cameras and the like, which only makes things worse. The amount of electronics needed to actually run an ICE, even one equipped with all sorts of sensors, is minimal. All the rest is junk that we don't need, yet somehow seem to want or end up with anyway.

While others are no doubt on the optimistic side, you seem determinedly pessimistic. There's no particular reason why battery packs cannot be cost effectively recycled. As far as I am aware the technical know-how is already well known, what is missing is the investment, the infrastructure and the legislation to make it happen - in which case there is still a lot of work to do.

There also remains the question: are 'cars' as we currently know them, really the way we should continue to go?

Most people, most of the time, don't really need anything much more than a powered shopping trolley, or something capable of handling the daily commute. Instead we have thousands of pounds tied up in something that spends most of its life sitting still, and when it moves it just pootles 'around the block'.

All those advertisements of wide open spaces and the thrill of the 'open road' is just marketing bollocks - and we fall for it every time.

I'm pessimistic, because I see a radical lifestyle change being mandated upon us that will not achieve its supposed aims (that is, "save the planet"), but will most definitely make a select few much richer.

There's no particular reason why battery packs cannot be cost effectively recycled.

There are plenty. It's practically impossible to disassemble an EV battery pack safely, especially if you wanted to run the process at any kind of scale. The components within are mechanically and chemically combined in a way that makes the raw materials very hard to extract (as I already suggested, almost no-one is claiming to be able to extract the lithium from these cells).

Given a chemistry lab, you could strip down one cell, but not at any kind of economically-viable scale.

You are absolutely correct about what people actually need, and making those things is relatively easy. If all of these environmental laws were actaully about the environment, why is that not happening, instead of people buying lots of big shiny new toys?

It's not just the charging points but the additional supply of electricity required to allow them to charge. The solution for this is to replace the batteries with fuel cells, but expect a few more rounds of subsidies before that happens.

An where is the electricity coming from to produce all that hydrogen? There plenty of capacity in the grid over night to handle electric cars, there will be even more once we start shutting down those soon to be redundent refineries.

Most refineries burn byproducts to power the site, not that long ago unwanted gas was just vented and burnt for all to see.

Refineries will be refining crude into products other than petrol/diesel for a long time, if they stop burning the byproducts they'll need to use more grid power not less.

Made in China - along with all the other electronics and cabling for the millions of charging points you would need to actually run a country of EVs. Obviously, we would be repeat customers, as electronics (especially those left outside) don't last very long.

Makes you wonder exactly for whose benefit we are doing all of this.

We're trying (and failing) to stop the Climate Emergency.

Things are going to have to change very fast in the next decade, or less. Be prepared!

How are we going to stop the Climate Emergency within a decade, if first we have to manufacture a huge number of solar panels, EVs, etc etc??

Oh not this again.

No one believes the creation and roll out of EVs is 100% 'clean', at least no-one with a modicum of knowledge.

However the benefits speak for themselves in other ways often overlooked; far fewer moving parts, significantly less servicing, noise, cleaner air at point if use, disposable of waste is easier to maintain and manage... it really isn't a simple black and white analogy.

Yes there are new problems to fathom out, many of which you highlight especially the environmental impact of those elements. However in time they will be extricated and recycled effectively and efficiently. The issue of self servicing and right to repair (although that's increasingly a problem now anyway).

I cannot wait until we're ready to get our first EV in a year or two, and that's coming form someone who owns 2 petrol cars, a 2500cc V6 and a 2500cc flat 6 turbo. Not efficient at all but both well beyond expected end of life (a '99 and a '56 respectively) and are greener than scrapping for a 'new' car. And a lot more fun to boot.

Of course there's the question of if the supply cabling and substations will handle the load (Hint, without massive overbuilds it's unlikely and exploding footpaths are probably going to become more common)

Well, the National Grid employ clever people that do this sort of thing for a living and they seem to think that this is achievable so I'm not too worried.

Well you should be. The national grid is about to lose its independence and be nationalised, bringing it under full political control.

Anyone who murmurs that it can't be done will be sacked for 'negative attitudes'.

Name one big government sposnsored infratstructure project that has actually delivered what it was supposed to, on time and on budget, if at all..

You thought we all needed liberating from the nasty Big Oil companies - just wait until all of the power we need to move around, heat our homes, and eat is controlled by the government!

Just like the 1970s then..

... poo

And then there's the question of do you have enough power generation to supply all those chargers without shutting down power to households ?

I'm all for EVs, but I am still waiting for the proof that batteries are 100% recyclable and not a gigantic pile of noxious chemicals waiting for the landfill.

Again, the National Grid seem to suggest we already have enough supply for the EV transition. Distribution is probably the bigger challenge.

The battery recycling is an interesting one. They're certainly reusable and Tesla seem to indeed suggest they're 100% recyclable but there aren't enough of them out there to recycle because they're lasting a lot longer than expected, especially when you take reusing into account.

Recycling needs to be made commercially viable for manufacturers otherwise we'll be walking into a complete disaster indeed.

N-G didn't have the supply last year when one power station & one wind farm borked at the same time resulting in blackouts, currently the UK is taking 3GW (or a complete Hinkly Point Nuke plant) permanently from across the channel. These lines were originally a backup plan to allow power sharing to cover odd events like sudden unexpected shutdowns, now they're not.

100% recycling of batteries could be possible, what about the chemical residues used in the process?

Mundane engineering realities often get in the way of great ideas.

Again, the National Grid seem to suggest we already have enough supply for the EV transition.

Citation, please?

The figures I've seen show that just for light vehicles, charging would require that all the UK power stations run at full capacity 24/7. That's totally unfeasible, the grid can't get that power to where it will be needed anyway, and it doesn't even begin to address HGVs.

"The figures I've seen show that just for light vehicles, charging would require that all the UK power stations run at full capacity 24/7."

And your cite is...? (he who lives by the "citation please" dies by the "citation please" )

And your cite is.

The [1]UK Government figures show that road transport consumed about 40mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent) in 2019, of which about 12m is petrol cars, and 11m diesel cars. That's about 270TWh.

Let's assume that EVs are almost twice as efficient as ICE in terms of getting input energy turned into movement, so it would take around 150TWh of grid electricity just to meet current car transport needs.

From the same source, total UK supply in 2019 was 346TWh, of which 325TWh was generated in the UK and 21TWh was imported.

Total UK generating capacity in 2019 was 78GW (down from 83GW in 2018), and of which 22GW is from intermittent renewables. Over the 8760 hours in a year, total possible generation (every source running 24/7) would be between 490 and 680 TWh depending on wind/sun. The max is clearly impossible because renewables are intermittent, and other systems gave to be taken offline for maintenance.

With non-transport UK electricity demand of 346TWh, and 150TWh for car transport, demand would rise to just under 500TWh, just barely possible if everything is running flat out, and without considering the 100+TWh that would also be required if diesel lorries were replaced by electric.

.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/928350/2020_Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK__ECUK_.pdf

Citation?

Sure, from he NG itself.

Have a blast.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/can-grid-cope-extra-demand-electric-cars

Sure, from he NG itself.

"an extra 100 terrawatt hours from our current 300 terrawatt hours consumed."

The "Transport Decarbonisation Director" who plays down the figures (see my previous post), doesn't even know the correct units and blithely claims "the growth in wind power from the extra offshore wind farms being developed will adequately meet the future demand for electrifying transport " without any figures?

Wishful thinking, I fear.

Ah, and here we get into which figures are right. Why would "The Government" know more than the NG?

And, obviously, your answer would be "And why would the NG know more than the government".

I don't know which one is the authoritative source, but I would (naturally, because it substantiates my point) tend to believe the people who run the thing more than "The Government", whoever they are... :D

Also, you assume the generating capacity will remain static (which it doesn't have to). Even if all cars sold in 2030 are EVs, there will remain ICEs in circulation for a long time after, so the transition will be slow enough that generating capacity can be brought online to more than supply the increased demand.

Ideally nuclear generating capacity, IMHO, but sadly I suspect I'm more likely to win the lottery two weeks running than THAT happening...

Why would "The Government" know more than the NG?

And, obviously, your answer would be "And why would the NG know more than the government".

No, actually. My answer would be: Because it's the government who collects the information to set policy. If it doesn't know at least as much as the NG, then it has no business legislating on things which require NG co-operation.

I would (naturally, because it substantiates my point) tend to believe the people who run the thing more than "The Government", whoever they are... :D

Understandable, but if you look at the report I referenced it is far more detailed than the flyer from the NG which can't even get the terminology correct. NG is a private company whose main aim is to make money, and for obvious reasons is not going to say anything which would suggest it isn't all set for any future demands.

Also, you assume the generating capacity will remain static

No, not at all, although it would be better if it weren't falling as it has over the past year. The problem is that to increase capacity in a useful way (i.e. not by simply throwing gas turbines at the problem) takes years of planning. To meet an "all new cars much be EVs" directive by 2030, NG should have had it's plans for new capacity ready & approved by government back in 2010 if not before, with construction well under way by now. Does it? We're talking of HS2-level construction, with 20+ year lead times.

Ideally nuclear generating capacity, IMHO, but sadly I suspect I'm more likely to win the lottery two weeks running than THAT happening...

Yeah, me too, and I don't even play the lottery... :-)

And then there's the question of do you have enough power generation to supply all those chargers without shutting down power to households ?

As long as there is technology to 'stagger' the demand it should be fine. Don't forget that this will require a mental shift with respect to 'fuelling' your car. Instead of the current 'run the tank to nearly empty then fill it back up' we will switch to 'top the battery up when you get home'.

Current EV technology only needs 15 minutes to recharge after a typical 20 mile commute so even if you can only charge one car domestically at a time you can still recharge 48 cars in between 'getting home from work' and 'leaving for work'. And I'm pretty sure the current domestic supply can already handle more than one EV at a time on any given substation so we just need the ability for chargers to take turns. That should mean any typical number of private vehicles can be accommodated overnight.

..and that's just charging at home. Extend the concept (as we should) to 'charge any time you're parked' and the load gets even more spread out. There might even turn out to be less need to cater for those who don't have off-road parking. They just charge when parked at the shops, or work, or school.

>>>chargers to take turns<<<

Except that people will expect that plug in means charge now, I might be going out again in an hour.

It may have to handle hundreds during the early evening when they all come home, plus the cooking & heating requirements in our all electric future.

Hundreds of gigawatts of power usage is moving from direct liquid & gas burning onto electric cables.

When we get an EV with car-to-house capabilities, we'll be able to charge it from our solar PV during the daytime and then run the house off the car battery in the mornings and evenings. In the summer months we'll rarely need to use grid electricity at all. In the winter we'll use some, but at a nice steady base load - perfect for big power stations to provide.

LESS load on the grid. Massively distributed energy storage, even LESS demands on the Grid.

> we'll be able to charge it from our solar PV during the daytime

Wishful thinking? Charging your car entirely through solar panels would require more than an average suburb roof surface (or some technology we don't have yet). But the biggest problem is that during daylight time your car will be away with you, not charging in the sun.

.

> and then run the house off the car battery in the mornings and evenings.

We were talking about the problems charging your EV in the first place, and now you want to waste its precious-yet-insufficient charge to heat your shower water and cook your dinner? Now that's a case of having your cake and eating it too!...

Your home needs x kWh a day to keep you warm, fed and clean, and your new EV needs an additional y kWh to be able to get you to work/shopping/chauffeuring the kids around. The sum of both has to remain smaller than the amount of available energy (grid, solar, whatever), which might get tricky for households with more than one car.

(Didn't downvote you though.)