EV's . . . . No Surprise There Then . . .

[Dryce]

Here's the ruined boot of the C300e hybrid estate .

Oh dear.

Kind of makes a complete mockery of the concept of hybrid estate.

 

[Dryce]

This seems to me an honest approach which is lacking in the blinkered policy adopted in the all out push for EV's and the ban on hybrids although they did at least get a brief reprieve.

How honest is the hybrid approach?

How many Toyota hybrids sold actually achieve what they implicitly promise?

If hybrids really worked that well we would have seen the technology adpopted by urban and suburban delivery vehicles years ago without any subsidy or incentive.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

A Twitter thread that tears apart the hit piece paid for by companies with a vested interest...

https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1332464525602410498

 

[Fununcle]

I still cannot get my head around all this talk of pollution and its awful effects on our health. Airport workers, especially those that are close to large airliners, how come they do not all drop down dead? Look at footage of American aircraft carriers, how come those working on the flight decks do not die at a young age and yes, my first ship was an aircraft carrier (HMS Centaur)

Jets burn a derivative of diesel, there are no catalytic converters, no filtration of any type, just unadulterated pongy fumes ripping out of the back end of these jets and yes, the large airliners burn approximately 1.5 tons of fuel moving from the jetway to the runway, and then they overfly our cities with that 'pedal to the metal' dumping all that pollution unto our unsuspecting public. BUT WAIT....... Aren't aircraft exempt from all those that claim we will get to zero levels of pollution?? How gullible can we all be?

EV's the second coming... I think not but never let the truth stop our illustrious journalists from writing their stories.

Do people stand close to jet airliners when they are taking off? People live on congested streets their whole lives.

 

[Philc57]

what about all the buses and trucks then

Are they not trailing hydrogen for larger vehicles ? I'm sure i read this somewhere

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Electric Vehicles Are A Silver Bullet For Zero Emissions – Don’t Believe The Fossil Fuel Hype

Recent claims that the production of EVs creates so much CO2 you have to drive them for 50,000 miles before they become greener than conventional cars are hiding lots of details, and come from a strong pro-fossil fuel bias.

www.forbes.com

An excerpt:

“You also don’t need to look far to see that the companies that commissioned the report could well have ulterior motives. They are Honda, Aston Martin, Bosch, and McLaren. Honda has released a rather fun little EV called the Honda e, but its range is woeful and the company is clearly behind the main EV contenders in core technology. Aston Martin cancelled its RapidE electric vehicle and is now not promising anything electric until 2026, which is likely to be too late to catch up. Bosch got out of the battery business a few years ago and is now heavily invested in hydrogen fuel cells. McLaren, as brilliant as its cars are, won’t even have a hybrid until 2021 let alone an electric model, unlike Lotus with its gorgeous Evija”

 

[markjay]

Oh dear.

Kind of makes a complete mockery of the concept of hybrid estate.

It was always going to be an issue when converting an ICE to EV or Hybrid.

They need to be designed from the ground up in order for the internal space to be used effectively and hide the batteries, cooling system, and electric motors etc with no intrusive obstructions.

 

[Dryce]

Electric Vehicles Are A Silver Bullet For Zero Emissions – Don’t Believe The Fossil Fuel Hype

Recent claims that the production of EVs creates so much CO2 you have to drive them for 50,000 miles before they become greener than conventional cars are hiding lots of details, and come from a strong pro-fossil fuel bias.

www.forbes.com

An excerpt:

“You also don’t need to look far to see that the companies that commissioned the report could well have ulterior motives.

You don't need an ulterior motive when somebody is telling you that you have to take your existing product line which costs £Billions and write it off and spend more £Billions on craeting a revised product line.

That's a pretty in your face motive.

And people should be asking this question. If EVs are expensive and need subsidies then something isn't quite right.

It concerns me that the real environmental impact of the manufacture of mass market vehicles may actually be easily measurable: I suspect the ex-factory costs including the amortisation of design and development costs and plant investment costs actually gives a rough comparative measure. Why? because it crudely accounts for all the effort and people from the first back of the envelope sketch by the design team to the engine being started to drive it off at the end of the producton line. It includes the overheads of the manufacturer.

By that measure if the ex-factory cost of an EV is higher than then equivalent non-E vehicle then that environmental discrepancy has to be properly justified.

 

[markjay]

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned-out that sticking to your polluting pre-DPF ancient Diesl car is actually better for the planet overall than crashing your old car and building you a brand new shiny super-green one instead, then shipping it over here from China.

 

[markjay]

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned-out that sticking to your polluting pre-DPF ancient Diesl car is actually better for the planet overall than crashing your old car and building you a brand new shiny super-green one instead, then shipping it over here from China.

Though, 'better for the planet' is not the same as 'better for the planet's inhabitants'......

The interests of the people living on this planet are indeed better-served by providing them with clean air and unpolluted water, but if we do so at the expense of the economy, then the overall net result might be great for the planet but not so great for the population.

Following the 2008 'credit crunch' and subsequent banking crisis, our government created what became known as the scrappage scheme. The idea was that if people bought new cars then the production of said new cars will invigorate the economy and save jobs. The planet had to wait while we sorted our finances first.

 

[Philc57]

Though, 'better for the planet' is not the same as 'better for the planet's inhabitans

Following the 2008 'credit crunch' and subsequent banking crisis, our government created what became known as the scrappage scheme. The idea was that if people bought new cars then the production of said new cars will invigorate the economy and save jobs. The planet had to wait while we sorted our finances first.

Did the scrappage scheme not help get some bad polluting vehicles off the road at the same time. It wasn't just an economy drive.

 

[markjay]

Did the scrappage scheme not help get some bad polluting vehicles off the road at the same time. It wasn't just an economy drive.

It was officially aimed at helping the economy to bounce back following the financial crisis.

The eligibility criteria for the car that was being disposed-off was age, not how much it polluted (though one could argue that on average older cars were more polluting than new cars, for the same engine size). Also, the new vehicles that could be purchased under this scheme were not limited to 'green' cars.

See also:

Budget 2009: car industry welcomes scrappage scheme

Budget: motorists will get £2,000 grant to trade in old vehicles

www.theguardian.com

 

[Deleted member 37751]

You don't need an ulterior motive when somebody is telling you that you have to take your existing product line which costs £Billions and write it off and spend more £Billions on craeting a revised product line.

I know *why* they'd do it in the short-term, but electric vehicles are the future whether you, I or these manufacturers like it or not.

I understand that people generally don't like change and are fearful of it - I get it - but I can imagine a future in 30 years where I'm sat telling my grandchildren about ICE cars and the archaic way in which we utilised different fuels..

 

[Deleted member 37751]

For anyone who enjoys a good read:

 

[Darrell]

I know *why* they'd do it in the short-term, but electric vehicles are the future whether you, I or these manufacturers like it or not.

I understand that people generally don't like change and are fearful of it - I get it - but I can imagine a future in 30 years where I'm sat telling my grandchildren about ICE cars and the archaic way in which we utilised different fuels..

I don’t think people object to EV’s per se.

After reading this thread it appears that people’s biggest worries and fears are expense, range and expense.

Im as much of a petrol head as the next person but I’d have no issues with an EV but again it’s down to range and expense.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

The unraveling begins: LowCVP response to media coverage about ‘Decarbonising Road Transport’ report - clarification

 

[Big Janner]

I know *why* they'd do it in the short-term, but electric vehicles are the future whether you, I or these manufacturers like it or not.

I understand that people generally don't like change and are fearful of it - I get it - but I can imagine a future in 30 years where I'm sat telling my grandchildren about ICE cars and the archaic way in which we utilised different fuels..

Can't agree SPX
IMHO, EV's are a part of the short to medium term future only.
The costs, economic and ecological, mitigate against batteries, unless our scientists can come up with alternative, ingredients, manufacturing and disposal methods

A combination of EV for the many, many school runs, shop runs and the myriad of other short journeys, with hydrogen cell (HC) for long distance commercial and passenger road transport, is my (maybe totally off target) view.

I know there are misgivings about hydrogen storage on board vehicles, but both honda and toyota now have development well advanced.
We can't just dismiss HC technology, just because it isn't being considered by the short sighted.

Something that really gets me going is the message that, by going to EV's, we are saving the planet from the old devil; oil.
Petrol and diesel are just a small portion of what is distilled from crude.
With the need for other oil products, crude will still be sucked out of the ground for decades to come.
What will become of the petrol and diesel portions of the crude, if demand falls below supply.
The refiners can't just not distil it. It's part of the process
If it isn't burned, where will it go?

Appologies . . .rant over, I'll get my coat

 

[markjay]

The main issue with burning carbon-based fuels is that it creates all sorts of pollution and emissions issues.

Within that, the specific issue with fossil fuel isn't necessarily that producing it and burning it is more harmful to the environment than other types of carbon fuels, but that there's a limited supply of this non-renewable resource. Which, in turn, causes all sort of complex issues.

In the short term it leads to wars... and when it doesn't, it is being weaponises in many ways from OPEC holding the world for ransom in the seventies to the US imposing sanctions preventing Iraq and later Iran from selling it. Additionally, the price of a barrel of crude can fluctuate from $25 to £100, often due to purely political reasons, which can reign havoc on countries' economies.

In the long term, it is clear that it will be lunacy to try and satisfy our ever-increasing need for energy by relying on a finite resource, most of which is controlled by despots.

So we looking to move away from carbon-based fuels in two stages - I.e. firstly widen the range of carbon-based fuels we use and dilute the share that comes from fossil fuels, and then look for an alternative to carbon-burning altogether.

Where EVs come into this, is that the move to a mode of transport that relies on centrally-produced energy is paramount.

It doesn't matter how the electricity for the EVs is produced right now, what matters is that once all our vehicles are EVs, we could easily and seamlessly change the source of energy that powers them from carbon fuels to nuclear, or to wind and solar, etc etc etc.

In contrast, take for example the effort to ban pre-EU6 cars from our roads - it is slow and takes decades - and this is just to affect a minor technological change.

In this context, I am surprised that the benefits of ICE-powred cars aren't being mentioned, at least in the interest of having heard (and considered) all relevant arguments.

Having the energy produced locally (I.e. at the vehicle) as opposed to centrally (i.e. at national power plants) provides far greater resilience for many eventualities including natural disasters, war or cyber attacks, as well tyranny and oppression.

Each car owner effectively run their own private energy factory that they can use to remain mobile in the face of adversary. All it takes is a few cans of petrol stored away, or better-still the ability to home produce bio-Diesel.

Even in the Mad-Max fictional future, people remained mobile (albeit by fighting for fuel). If all they had was EVs, they'd all grind to a halt the day the grid was switched off. And good luck to anyone thinking of powering an EV purely from a solar panel.

Perhaps the resilient mobility argument isn't compelling enough in itself, but nevertheless I think it should still be made and heard. Certainly, with so many people objecting to facemasks, vaccine, biometric passports, etc, for Libertarian reasons, it is somewhat perplexing to see that the same people will happily give away their freedom of independent mobility and jump into an electric cars that can be made immobile at will by the authorities - all for the benefit of cost savings and reduced tax.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Each car owner effectively run their own private energy factory that they can use to remain mobile in the face of adversary. All it takes is a few cans of petrol stored away, or better-still the ability to home produce bio-Diesel.

Even in the Mad-Max fictional future, people remained mobile (albeit by fighting for fuel). If all they had was EVs, they'd all grind to a halt the day the grid was switched off. And good luck to anyone thinking of powering an EV purely from a solar panel.

Maybe it's simply my age, I really don't know, but I'm really struggling with this constant "post-apocalyptic vision" as an argument against EV's, it's been aired a few times now and I'm baffled by it because you could apply it to virtually anything and everything:

"We have a new water saving device that reduces usage by 40%"

'Yes, but if terrorists get control of the water networks then it won't work'

Or

"We've created a car tyre with a base material of waste vegetables"

'Well if terrorists take over the fields, we won't be able to make them'

Are people so afraid of change that they'd rather put up spurious barriers to progress just so they feel better?

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Can't agree SPX
IMHO, EV's are a part of the short to medium term future only.

What do you class as short to medium term?

A combination of EV for the many, many school runs, shop runs and the myriad of other short journeys, with hydrogen cell (HC) for long distance commercial and passenger road transport, is my (maybe totally off target) view.

I know there are misgivings about hydrogen storage on board vehicles, but both honda and toyota now have development well advanced.
We can't just dismiss HC technology, just because it isn't being considered by the short sighted.

I dismiss nothing, I'm not wedded to any sort of dogma, I simply see where the technology is headed and give my opinion.

Appologies . . .rant over, I'll get my coat

If the apology was aimed at me then there's no need whatsoever; like I've said a few times, it doesn't really matter what anyone on here thinks - EV's are coming thick and fast along with billions being invested in technologies like battery storage that will help balance the grid network which I would think people would be happy with so that we don't have to rely on foreign powers to heat our homes...