The EV fact thread

[Noitz]

This is what our government says:

And you believe everything the government says? I think a huge pinch of salt is required when listening to them ant most times, but especially when they have a vested financial interest in 'net zero'.

 

[Dryce]

This is what our government says:

"Air pollution has a negative effect on a number of different aspects of human health. In London, 9,400 premature deaths are attributed to poor air quality and a cost of between £1.4 and £3.7 billion a year to the health service."

It's interesting - between 1.4 and 3.7 billion is quite a wide range. It basically says 'we do not really know'.

But the figure of 9400 seems to be implied as exact. Hmmmmmm.

Such is the way advocates play with numbers. No better than Boris Brexit arithmetic.

 

[Mactech]

One undeniable fact about EV's is that the rate of development of range, efficiency and charging rates continues at an incredible pace.
The latest Porsche Tacan has just been previewed by Autocar. The range up a genuine 20% to over 360 miles and a charging rate (which was tested) to allow a 6% to 80% charge in just 14 mins. Performance is ...err...adequate
If you can do that sort of range without needing a leak or a drink, then you are a lot younger than me!
Again, it seems that the car engineers are ahead of the charging infrastructure, but 350kWh charge points do keep cropping up now.

When asked as an engineer if can we do it, my standard reply is "We're engineers, we can do almost anything. Now, can you afford it?"

 

[Dryce]

When asked as an engineer if can we do it, my standard reply is "We're engineers, we can do almost anything. Now, can you afford it?"

Is this not very very poignant? So Porsche up the range and charging speed of their vehicles ..... not exactly affordable mass market - which is why EVs will continue to fail on their won merits.

When Tesla was being discussed prior to the Tesla S launch there was optimism that the base price would be $30000 - that would have been a game changer. Turned out when the processed were actually realised the Tesla S was being pitched nowhere near the likes of a well spec'ed Mondeo or Insignia as some were hoping - not even within the realms of a regular E class or 5 Series.

The real trick with automotive engineering is delivering the technology to the mass market. Not the subsidised company car buyers and the minority capable and willing of paying a premium privately.

 

[Mactech]

The real trick with automotive engineering is delivering the technology to the mass market. Not the subsidised company car buyers and the minority capable and willing of paying a premium privately.

Exactly! You must have noticed how quickly S class technology trickles down to A Class cars. Why not let those who can afford it pay for the initial development which will become cheaper (and better?) as economy of scale takes hold?

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

When Tesla was being discussed prior to the Tesla S launch there was optimism that the base price would be $30000 - that would have been a game changer.

Are you thinking of the Model 3 rather than the Model S?

 

[Dryce]

Are you thinking of the Model 3 rather than the Model S?

No.

 

[markjay]

Do they ?

England Air Quality Index (AQI) and United Kingdom Air Pollution | IQAir

England Air Quality Index (AQI). Read the air pollution in England, United Kingdom, get real-time, historical and forecast PM2.5 and weather data with AirVisual.

www.iqair.com

This is what our government says:

"Air pollution has a negative effect on a number of different aspects of human health. In London, 9,400 premature deaths are attributed to poor air quality and a cost of between £1.4 and £3.7 billion a year to the health service."

Air pollution and the effect on our health | London Councils

www.londoncouncils.gov.uk

And you believe everything the government says? I think a huge pinch of salt is required when listening to them ant most times, but especially when they have a vested financial interest in 'net zero'.

No, I do not believe everything that the government says. But, equally, I don't necessarily believe everything I see quoted from random Internet sites, either.

As for Net Zero, improving air quality in cities has nothing to do with it. These are two different goals.

 

[markjay]

It's interesting - between 1.4 and 3.7 billion is quite a wide range. It basically says 'we do not really know'.

But the figure of 9400 seems to be implied as exact. Hmmmmmm.

Such is the way advocates play with numbers. No better than Boris Brexit arithmetic.

Whatever the exact figures are... these are all preventable deaths and preventable diseases.

 

[markjay]

Tesla Model-S, 2012:

"Naah", they said, "It will never catch on".

Mercedes S-Class, 2024:

Who's the real visionary, then?

 

[Dryce]

Whatever the exact figures are... these are all preventable deaths and preventable diseases.

It didn't say these were preventable ..... but premature. Not the same thing.

And I'll repeat the number is exact and unqualified (as opposed to the cost which should surely be measurable to some degree of accuracy if that figure is exact).

We need to make decisions based on tangible numbers - not ones that are generated and presented to suit advocates or justify their imposed decisions after the fact.

 

[markjay]

It didn't say these were preventable ..... but premature. Not the same thing.

And I'll repeat the number is exact and unqualified (as opposed to the cost which should surely be measurable to some degree of accuracy if that figure is exact).

We need to make decisions based on tangible numbers - not ones that are generated and presented to suit advocates or justify their imposed decisions after the fact.

Premature deaths due to poor air quality are unpreventable? That's a very pessimistic view of our future.

 

[Dryce]

Exactly! You must have noticed how quickly S class technology trickles down to A Class cars. Why not let those who can afford it pay for the initial development which will become cheaper (and better?) as economy of scale takes hold?

How much exciting stuff is there in a S Class in the last decade. It's mostly extra mass and frills.

What is needed is not a trickle down but a surge down that jolts the market. We're just not seeing that.

 

[Dryce]

Premature deaths due to poor air quality are unpreventable? That's a very pessimistic view of our future.

I'll do my broken record bit.

If this is an accepted problem then absolutely ban house building and schools near busy roads. That's not being done. I see housing and office developments next to busy dual carriageways, motorways, and interchanges.

But that option just isn't considered.

Hypocrisy, negligence, or warped dogmatic advocacy?

 

[markjay]

I'll do my broken record bit.

If this is an accepted problem then absolutely ban house building and schools near busy roads. That's not being done. I see housing and office developments next to busy dual carriageways, motorways, and interchanges.

But that option just isn't considered.

Hypocrisy, negligence, or warped dogmatic advocacy?

It is being done, but the other way around, and it's called Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, or LTN for short.

This means that busy roads near residential houses and schools are closed for through traffic, to reduce pollution.

The trouble is that people don't like LTNs, because they make their car journeys longer. Air quality, you say? Bah humbug.

 

[ALFAitalia]

When I first read about the allegedly 9400 deaths from London pollution it was worded something like " London air pollution may have contributed to up to 9400 deaths".... it was put together from computer modelling and health service statistics. Funny how that exact same figure is now " deaths directly attributed to London Air quality".... hmm. Lies, dam lies and statistics. I'm not saying that poor air a quality is a good thing....I am saying that you can make figures mean anything. Dont forget that London Air quality is usually well above WHO minimum standards..... and there are many worse polluted places....even in the UK.

 

[markjay]

When I first read about the allegedly 9400 deaths from London pollution it was worded something like " London air pollution may have contributed to up to 9400 deaths".... it was put together from computer modelling and health service statistics. Funny how that exact same figure is now " deaths directly attributed to London Air quality".... hmm. Lies, dam lies and statistics. I'm not saying that poor air a quality is a good thing....I am saying that you can make figures mean anything. Dont forget that London Air quality is usually well above WHO minimum standards..... and there are many worse polluted places....even in the UK.

And if it was 5,000 deaths? Or 3,000 deaths? What difference does it make? Just because we don't know the exact figure, isn't a reason to not do anything about it.

 

[markjay]

I guess this could happen, too:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[E55BOF]

Just sayin...

 

[clk320x]

Blimey just logged on again after a few days away, and here we are… the same old…perhaps I’ll check in again in another few days, maybe it’ll be up to 200 pages. Actually, I better save my sanity.