"The Dirty Truth about Combustion Engine Vehicles"

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

TeddyRuxpin

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,340
Location
Cardiff / London
Car
2x E350 CDI Sport W212s... for a bit
Makes an argument that's hard to... argue with - especially just because 'we like car that go VROOM VROOM!'

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Would be helpful if the percentage of oil mined actually used in cars was mentioned. The implication that all oil mined is for car use is somewhat disingenuous. Ditto overlooking the huge energy required in battery manufacture.

10% of all shipping is transporting oil. 90% transporting everything else we can't or wont go without. And no (as yet) viable alternative for powering shipping, aviation, making plastics...
 
Whenever there is demand for natural resource from the third world there is exploitation and injustice. This not confined to EV battery technology as the historic "mining" of fossil fuels can attest. One example would be the IRAQ invasion of Kuwait which resulted is this
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
As I’ve said before, I’m not dodging pollution, just tired of listening to successive governments pointing me in the direction of their next expensive pollution holy grail, and expecting me to swallow it. Energy = pollution.
Agree.
 
Fossil fuels will be replaced
a) They are depleting.
b) They add to climate change
c) The west doesn’t want Middle East to hold all the cards. (Nor Russia)

so yes there is a push to find the ‘best’ alternative.

when it comes to the environment, they just seem to say that EVs don’t pollute - but never mention the devastation and damage directly to the environment in mining for the minerals used in the batteries (open cast lithium mines)

That will be the job for the next generation to fix
 
Politicians are only interested in what's come out of the exhaust pipe, never mind open cast mining its in another country.
Pam oil used in fuels is another environmental disaster but that's also in another country.
 
Makes an argument that's hard to... argue with - especially just because 'we like car that go VROOM VROOM!'
I have a serious problem with people like Robert Llewelyn. A celebrity who almost certainly has a lot of personal wealth, able to afford to go full electric and continually preaching about the virtues of electric cars (Tesla in his case as I remember) and the devil that seems to be the internal combustion engine. Getting very tired of regular motorists being demonised for not wanting to throw our (perfectly good) ICE cars away and buy something with absolutely zero appeal (to me at least as a keen driver).
 
I have a serious problem with people like Robert Llewelyn. A celebrity who almost certainly has a lot of personal wealth, able to afford to go full electric and continually preaching about the virtues of electric cars (Tesla in his case as I remember) and the devil that seems to be the internal combustion engine. Getting very tired of regular motorists being demonised for not wanting to throw our (perfectly good) ICE cars away and buy something with absolutely zero appeal (to me at least as a keen driver).
Quite,
Truth is 30,000,000+ vehicles allegedly being being traded for the ‘privilege’ of taking a very expensive gamble on (IMHO) an EV with questionable residuals that could well be replaced relatively quickly with the next ecological breakthrough.
In my case I’m unashamedly not rich enough to gamble. Eg. Zoe RRP of £30,700 😳🤔😂
 
The problem with the linked piece as I see it is its inherent bias. At the other end of the spectrum climate change deniers post to support their agenda.
In the meantime we are expected to embrace a 'chosen' technology which is neither ready (and when it is it won't be again when batteries with increased charging speed arrive) when by still allowing ICE to feature without it being time limited better solutions may be viable. Absolutely, to run EVs on anything other than electricity generated from renewables is nowhere close to any solution for reducing CO2 emissions. When that is achievable (and also used in the production of the EV - especially its battery) and the mining aspects are safe and sustainable then it is the obvious choice.
However, continually being told the future is already here is counterproductive as it's obvious to far too many that too many problems still need to be surmounted. Not least cost. There must be quite a few wondering if they are expected to walk to work as there is nothing on the EV market in sight affordable to them.

Also, though this will be ignored as usual - there are other ways to make inroads on CO2 emissions. Diet is the obvious one. As I've said before, I need an affordable car more than anyone needs meat. Bickering about EV residuals does not reduce CO2 emissions. Eating less meat does.
 
There is no doubt we have to move away from fossil fuels.

However, the negatives to buying an electric/hybrid outweigh the positives for me. I bought my Merc 12 days ago, it cost me £15K, it's just over 3 years old and has done 6K miles. For the equivalent car, spec, miles, age, I would have to spend at least £3K MORE for either a hybrid or a full electric. You could say I would possibly save on petrol over the long-term, but it's not as simple as that.
I also don't have a charging point, and no way of installing one. They're also expensive to have fitted, even if it was practical.
Charging takes time. You can do a quick charge in 30 mins, and there is a charging point at our local Lidl, so I could charge it whilst going shopping. This would be fine if I only needed to charge it occasionally when I went shopping, but these quick charges don't last that long and how good is a electric car if all it gets is 30 minute charges all the time? A full charge takes 8hrs, which is fine if you have the facilities at home and can charge it overnight. Most people don't. IF there were charging points at my work, I'd do it, but they don't. (And I can't see the NHS investing and caring about their staff enough to ever do it.)
I also have massive concerns about workers welfare when it comes to the battery production.
I am sceptical of the technology over the longer term. ie: How long do the batteries last? Once it's died, the car is effectively dead. If I buy a 3yr old hybrid/electric, will I still be able to drive the thing 5 years later?
There is no way I would buy a full electric yet, the technology simply isn't there. What happens if you can't get to a charging point?

Yes, I am in favour of electric and hybrid's, they are the future. However, there has to be some massive investments made first before I would buy one. They have to be quicker and easier to charge and they have to come down considerably in price.

Just a small point, but people blame eating meat/driving dirty cars etc etc for the problems the planet has. Yes, it's true, but the biggest problem is, by far, simply too many consumers.
 
Just a small point, but people blame eating meat/driving dirty cars etc etc for the problems the planet has. Yes, it's true, but the biggest problem is, by far, simply too many consumers.

but the biggest problem is = global corporate greed ( koch bros etc only one now, but damage done )

too many consumers = yes, but in the so called developed world. We are the disproportionate major consumers of shite ... click click .. bing bong .. your amzon order arrives.
 
The planet Earth's mega wealthy corporate elite are already planning their post covid getaway to avoid the mass consumers ...
Pretty sure bezos branson and others will be involved, controlling things from 'tracy island'

 
I would like to contribute to this, as it's a topic I have a great interest in. I work in the automotive industry at a manufacturer of electric vehicles - In fact one of our vehicles was featured in the video which amused me.

Some points not covered in the propaganda video:
  1. The most environmentally friendly vehicle is the vehicle you own now, almost regardless of what it is. If it's over 15 years old then it should be considered at 'end of life' by most manufacturers and so every year you drive it, you are benefitting the environment by not fuelling consumerism. Mend and make do is what true environmentalists used to understand. Your 15year old S600 is more environmentally friendly than a new Tesla.
  2. Electric vehicles pullute more in their manufacture, and you have to drive a distance of 50,000 miles (most conservative estimate - Volvo study) before you reach equivilence with a ICE vehicle at point of manufacture. (A Dutch university study said equivilence was more than 150,00km when factoring in realistic current grid and refinery profiles over europe...which can often be more than the vehicles life.
  3. No vehicle is zero emission - with the latest ICE vehicles, the tailpipe emissions are only 1/3 of the total emissions. Brakes, plastics and tyres pollute enormously, by 'gassing off' and through wear. These are all things which still exist in EV's.
  4. Doesn't matter what car you buy, it will still be delivered to you by a diesel truck, so you can get off your high horse right away about not contributing.
  5. Norway is able to subsidise EV's due to their soverign wealth fund revenue which invests heavily in oil, so if Norway dares preach to anyone remind them of that.
There are two environmental issues of note.
  1. Local pollution and
  2. Global emissions
With that in mind the right technology needs to be used for the right application - This is the engineering approach and I would propose the following:
  • Pure city cars doing high miles should be EV. (ie ride hailing)
  • City cars that do low miles should be small petrol engines (think Citroen C1 doing <5k a year)
  • City-Buses should be EV
  • Delivery vans should be EV
  • Taxi's should be petrol-hybrid
  • Coaches should be diesel-MHEV
  • Family cars should be PHEV (~12k pa)
  • Rep cars - diesel-MHEV (20k +)
  • Trucks should be hydrogen (although debatable...) diesel MHEV makes sense.
  • Sports cars, probably lightweight Petrol/MHEV (<5k)
There is an economic argument about the use of scarce resources that have alternative uses which heavily influences the above. If you have a battery with a range of 300miles but you only do 30miles, then the battery in the vehicle is underutilised and so wasted resources and an evironmental disaster, this makes the case for family cars as EV's very weak. Imagine 30miles per day and then occasional 150 miles weekend trip or airport run - EV makes no sense here, wheras a PHEV really does. You can apply the same logic to any of the above to understand the choices. This decision doesn't effect ICE vehicles because the fuel sorage device isn't a scarce resource.

The economic argument is often overlooked, but was originally behind the push for hybrids, because Li batteries were so expensive.

If you have a classic car and are thinking of converting it to EV that is probably the most absurd environmental decision you could make when considering the useage case and application of scarce resources. The above should explain why this is.

The issue is really that the conversation is rarely honest and there are so many factors to consider that aren't being covered by the media/governments because they simply don't understand. The speed at which the decision was made to pull the EV date to 2030 speaks volumes.

I don't often see the topics above mentioned in the EV conversation and so I thought I would contribute.
 
but the biggest problem is = global corporate greed ( koch bros etc only one now, but damage done )

too many consumers = yes, but in the so called developed world. We are the disproportionate major consumers of shite ... click click .. bing bong .. your amzon order arrives.
Oh, agree absolutely!
 
I would like to contribute to this, as it's a topic I have a great interest in. I work in the automotive industry at a manufacturer of electric vehicles - In fact one of our vehicles was featured in the video which amused me.

Some points not covered in the propaganda video:
  1. The most environmentally friendly vehicle is the vehicle you own now, almost regardless of what it is. If it's over 15 years old then it should be considered at 'end of life' by most manufacturers and so every year you drive it, you are benefitting the environment by not fuelling consumerism. Mend and make do is what true environmentalists used to understand. Your 15year old S600 is more environmentally friendly than a new Tesla.
  2. Electric vehicles pullute more in their manufacture, and you have to drive a distance of 50,000 miles (most conservative estimate - Volvo study) before you reach equivilence with a ICE vehicle at point of manufacture. (A Dutch university study said equivilence was more than 150,00km when factoring in realistic current grid and refinery profiles over europe...which can often be more than the vehicles life.
  3. No vehicle is zero emission - with the latest ICE vehicles, the tailpipe emissions are only 1/3 of the total emissions. Brakes, plastics and tyres pollute enormously, by 'gassing off' and through wear. These are all things which still exist in EV's.
  4. Doesn't matter what car you buy, it will still be delivered to you by a diesel truck, so you can get off your high horse right away about not contributing.
  5. Norway is able to subsidise EV's due to their soverign wealth fund revenue which invests heavily in oil, so if Norway dares preach to anyone remind them of that.
There are two environmental issues of note.
  1. Local pollution and
  2. Global emissions
With that in mind the right technology needs to be used for the right application - This is the engineering approach and I would propose the following:
  • Pure city cars doing high miles should be EV. (ie ride hailing)
  • City cars that do low miles should be small petrol engines (think Citroen C1 doing <5k a year)
  • City-Buses should be EV
  • Delivery vans should be EV
  • Taxi's should be petrol-hybrid
  • Coaches should be diesel-MHEV
  • Family cars should be PHEV (~12k pa)
  • Rep cars - diesel-MHEV (20k +)
  • Trucks should be hydrogen (although debatable...) diesel MHEV makes sense.
  • Sports cars, probably lightweight Petrol/MHEV (<5k)
There is an economic argument about the use of scarce resources that have alternative uses which heavily influences the above. If you have a battery with a range of 300miles but you only do 30miles, then the battery in the vehicle is underutilised and so wasted resources and an evironmental disaster, this makes the case for family cars as EV's very weak. Imagine 30miles per day and then occasional 150 miles weekend trip or airport run - EV makes no sense here, wheras a PHEV really does. You can apply the same logic to any of the above to understand the choices. This decision doesn't effect ICE vehicles because the fuel sorage device isn't a scarce resource.

The economic argument is often overlooked, but was originally behind the push for hybrids, because Li batteries were so expensive.

If you have a classic car and are thinking of converting it to EV that is probably the most absurd environmental decision you could make when considering the useage case and application of scarce resources. The above should explain why this is.

The issue is really that the conversation is rarely honest and there are so many factors to consider that aren't being covered by the media/governments because they simply don't understand. The speed at which the decision was made to pull the EV date to 2030 speaks volumes.

I don't often see the topics above mentioned in the EV conversation and so I thought I would contribute.
Finally, some common sense. 👍

I understand and agree with all of that. The other thing that gets me is that the UK contributes 2% to world co2 pollution? Something like that. A drop in the ocean. And yet countries like China contribute what, 25%, and their pollution is increasing each year. Wtf.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom