The EV fact thread

[markjay]

I'm more concerned about climate change.

It's an existential threat.

By comparison the LEZs and ULEZs are just political willy waving.

No form of powered personal transport will ever be green.

I really don't think that replacing one personal mobility metal box (ICE) with another (EV) will make a significant change to the environment. As far as saving the planet goes, the only solution is for us to use more public transport and less private cars.

I am, however, in favour of EVs over ICE due to the air quality issue in urban areas.

 

[markjay]

If inner city air quality is so bad for some people why don't they just move to somewhere with better air quality? If the answer is 'I was born and raised here, for generations we've been here' then clearly the air quality isn't harming them as much as claimed.

Good question. You could equally argue that anti-smoking legislation is unnecessarily, because people who don't like the smoke in their workplace could simply quit their jobs and seek open air employment instead, or stop going to their local pubs, etc. Same goes for Health & Safety legislation - if your workplace isn't safe, go work elsewhere. And why invest in road safety? If the road isn't safe, use another route. But where do you draw the line? This keeps throwing the responsibility on the people, and away from the government.

 

[Bellow]

Good question. You could equally argue that anti-smoking legislation is unnecessarily, because people who don't like the smoke in their workplace could simply quit their jobs and seek open air employment instead, or stop going to their local pubs,

An argument you'd lose as smoking is a pleasure for those who do it, commuting in most instances a necessary evil. The latter frequently to and from their place of work. Not many I know that can quit their livelihoods on such a whim.

etc. Same goes for Health & Safety legislation - if your workplace isn't safe, go work elsewhere. And why invest in road safety? If the road isn't safe, use another route. But where do you draw the line?

Draw the line at conflating air quality with death or serious injury incurred in RTAs.

This keeps throwing the responsibility on the people, and away from the government.

A position you advocate frequently and vehemently.

 

[markjay]

...A position you advocate frequently and vehemently.

If it was down to me (and sadly it isn't), I wouldn't ban sales of ICE cars, instead I would ban ICE cars from urban areas.

Any farmer who wish to keep their ancient Diesel Defenders or motorhomes owners etc can keep on driving their vehicles as long as they don't drive them into urban areas.

In urban areas, only zero-exhaust-emissions transport (private or public) will be permitted.

Draw the line at conflating air quality with death or serious injury incurred in RTAs.

Good idea. I just did. And that's the first results on Google:

"The nearly 5000 premature deaths each year caused by exhausts from cars, trucks and buses across the UK can be compared to the figure of 1850 early deaths from road traffic accidents in the UK in 2010"

 

[markjay]

An argument you'd lose as smoking is a pleasure for those who do it, commuting in most instances a necessary evil. The latter frequently to and from their place of work. Not many I know that can quit their livelihoods on such a whim.

The notions that all these drivers who are stuck in traffic jams are simply industrious and productive individuals who labour hard to better thenselves and the economy is detached from reality.

My (unscientific) guess is that maybe 20% of the private cars that clog up London roads every day are either doing unnecessary journeys or doing journeys that could have been done by public transport.

This is from talking to friends, relatives, and neighbours about their car use. "Yes, there's this new Sushi place in the SOHO, and I'm going to drive there instead of taking an Uber or the underground" doesn't sound to me much different to smoking, as far as 'pleasure' goes.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

If inner city air quality is so bad for some people why don't they just move to somewhere with better air quality? If the answer is 'I was born and raised here, for generations we've been here' then clearly the air quality isn't harming them as much as claimed.

I would imagine employment, family and cost of relocation is a barrier for many. If everyone moved to the countryside then it wouldn’t be countryside any more, and all of the negative aspects of city/urban living would move to the countryside, not to mention the large scale unemployment in the short and medium term.

 

[ChipChop]

Trees and large leaf plants, particularily evergreens, naturally absorb NOx. City dwellers try planting some yourself or demanding your council does instead of rubberstamping all those endless 5g towers and surveillance cameras.

 

[Dryce]

But as said above....air travel is pretty efficient carbon wise with a big plane flying long distance......way better carbon per person output than driving with one person in the car. But I appreciate what you are saying, that they doing really need to go at all. I do my bit buy not being able to afford long haul holidays more than about once a decade!!

Trying to get some equivalency is hard. But my general view is that cars are not great with just a driver - but each passenger added makes huge difference.

I did some rough calculations on a 787-9 which is reasonably modern. 38 tonnes of fuel to fly about 3000 miles. This in energy terms (aviation fuel is denser than petrol) came out at about 247 litres of petrol per passenger in low density config, 181 litres of petrol per passenger in high density config. (Assuming 100% load factor).

Taking an Astra as a comparison - it would notionally consume 6.7litres / 100km. So at 4800 km that would be 321 litres.

So:

aircraft at 100% load factor on a scheduled full service airline: 247 litres
aircraft at 100% load factor lon low cost /charter: 181 litres

car on 20% load factor (just a driver) 321 litres

And here we see that as soon as the car has a passenger in addition to the driver it basically drops to around 161 litres which is lower than the planes. The planes will not always fly full.

Now part of the conumdrum is translating jet fuel with higher density to petrol equivalent. But even if the basic numbers are out by say 20% or 30% in favour of the car - the impact of the second occupant of the car still nullifies that - and there is still space for a third, fourth, and fifth occupant.

EVs are hard to compare. A simplistic conversion of kWh per mile to equivalent petrol puts the EV in a horrendous position (about 3 times worse than the petrol car)> But clearly that doesn't reflect reality - the EV is using energy that is being more efficiently converted - and also doesn't necessarily come from fossil fuels. (Though I think this serves as a warning that mass use of EVs needs the supporting non-fossil fuel infrastructure to ensure that there is a net overall benefit).

 

[clk320x]

Trees and large leaf plants, particularily evergreens, naturally absorb NOx. City dwellers try planting some yourself or demanding your council does instead of rubberstamping all those endless 5g towers and surveillance cameras.

Do trees and large leaf plants absorb NoX and PM2.5?

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Will the Chinese not just reduce the price of the cars to compensate for that?
After all they’re not in it for the money (just yet) are they

Would you?

You’re flogging an MG for £25k delivered to Europe

Why drop your real income to £16k because of the tariff?

Europe’s hardly an important market. Why not focus on the other 95% of the world’s population. (Or 90% excluding the US as well)

 

[Bellow]

I would imagine employment, family and cost of relocation is a barrier for many. If everyone moved to the countryside then it wouldn’t be countryside any more, and all of the negative aspects of city/urban living would move to the countryside, not to mention the large scale unemployment in the short and medium term.

Just how many in any city are so susceptible, vulnerable, to less that pristine air quality? Enough to justify killing high street trade stone dead? I really doubt it. And, consequently, the relocation of that small number wouldn't dent the countryside. Would a hay fever sufferer live next to fields of rape seed oil? Of course not. Similarly, if inner city air quality is so injurious to a person's health they owe it themselves to seek better. What is there in a city that's worth dying for?

 

[markjay]

Just how many in any city are so susceptible, vulnerable, to less that pristine air quality? Enough to justify killing high street trade stone dead? I really doubt it. And, consequently, the relocation of that small number wouldn't dent the countryside. Would a hay fever sufferer live next to fields of rape seed oil? Of course not. Similarly, if inner city air quality is so injurious to a person's health they owe it themselves to seek better. What is there in a city that's worth dying for?

No one ever dropped dead just because they sat one night in a pub full of cigarette smoke.

But some did go on to develop serious illnesses later in life as result of regular passive smoking.

Your suggestion goes against everything we know from modern medicin - crucially, that serious illness and cancer often come as result of many years of exposure to small amounts of harmful substances.

In short your suggestion will condemn to poor health later in life all those people who do not have an immediate severe reaction to toxic exhaust fumes.

 

[Bellow]

No one ever dropped dead just because they sat one night in a pub full of cigarette smoke.

But some did go on to develop serious illnesses later in life as result of regular passive smoking.

'Some'. How many? Strange that I know of absolutely none who suffered that but know countless people who were subjected to passive smoking (some who smoked themselves) who have lived healthily to ages knocking 90 years and counting.

Your suggestion goes against everything we know from modern medicin - crucially, that serious illness and cancer often come as result of many years of exposure to small amounts of harmful substances.

In short your suggestion will condemn to poor health later in life all those people who do not have an immediate severe reaction to toxic exhaust fumes.

The argument is grossly over-inflated. When have so many been so inconvenienced for the (supposed) benefit of so few? Remember, that just because you don't give a shit about reducing CO2 emissions it has to be done and that requires cooperation form everyone and this ULEZ/LEZ bullshit is doing nothing but alienating them. Remember also that EVs only exist to reduce CO2 emissions (a task they are far from successful in thus far - 70,000mile CO2 amortisation FFS). Cleaner inner city air is merely a by-product of that not their raison d'être.

 

[ChipChop]

Do trees and large leaf plants absorb NoX and PM2.5?

Plants use their leaves to absorb inorganic airborne nitrogen molecules, such as NO & NO2, and turn them into amino acids.

 

[markjay]

'Some'. How many? Strange that I know of absolutely none who suffered that but know countless people who were subjected to passive smoking (some who smoked themselves) who have lived healthily to ages knocking 90 years and counting.

The argument is grossly over-inflated. When have so many been so inconvenienced for the (supposed) benefit of so few? Remember, that just because you don't give a shit about reducing CO2 emissions it has to be done and that requires cooperation form everyone and this ULEZ/LEZ bullshit is doing nothing but alienating them. Remember also that EVs only exist to reduce CO2 emissions (a task they are far from successful in thus far - 70,000mile CO2 amortisation FFS). Cleaner inner city air is merely a by-product of that not their raison d'être.

As per my previous post : "nearly 5000 premature deaths each year caused by exhausts from cars, trucks and buses across the UK" - this is in addition to an unknown number of people who fall ill but don't actually die.

 

[Harrythedog]

Would you?

You’re flogging an MG for £25k delivered to Europe

Why drop your real income to £16k because of the tariff?

Europe’s hardly an important market. Why not focus on the other 95% of the world’s population. (Or 90% excluding the US as well)

But they’re not in it for the money they’re in it to be the market leaders. MG’s and BYD are already heavily subsidised. Reducing the price for a few years may well be a price worth paying to wipe out some EU EV makers.
Europe are trying to lead the way in this particular market so it makes sense to target them

 

[Ted]

Trees and large leaf plants, particularily evergreens, naturally absorb NOx. City dwellers try planting some yourself or demanding your council does instead of rubberstamping all those endless 5g towers and surveillance cameras.

Very happy to be corrected here but I was under the impression that all of the carbon dioxide absorbed by a tree is eventually released back into the atmosphere, whether by natural decay, insects nibbling away at the wood, birds/animals eating the insects etc etc.
even if it is turned i to furniture or lumber, it will still decay eventually.
So I see a tree as a CO2 store rather than an atmosphere cleaner.

Happy to be corrected on this.

 

[ChipChop]

Very happy to be corrected here but I was under the impression that all of the carbon dioxide absorbed by a tree is eventually released back into the atmosphere, whether by natural decay, insects nibbling away at the wood, birds/animals eating the insects etc etc.
even if it is turned i to furniture or lumber, it will still decay eventually.
So I see a tree as a CO2 store rather than an atmosphere cleaner.

Happy to be corrected on this.

Your description above relates to the process of photosynthesis? and as per my earlier post plant leaves also absorb inorganic airborne nitrogen molecules, such as NO & NO2, and turn them into amino acids.

 

[markjay]

Your description above relates to the process of photosynthesis? and as per my earlier post plant leaves also absorb inorganic airborne nitrogen molecules, such as NO & NO2, and turn them into amino acids.

Are you suggesting that we should plant more threes in city centres? Not a bad idea, space permitting.

 

[BTB 500]

As far as saving the planet goes, the only solution is for us to use more public transport and less private cars.

Unfortunately many rural areas don't have much in the way of public transport, and that's not likely to change.

We're in the West Midlands not the Outer Hebrides but the only bus service in the area is a single trip from the next village (not ours) to the nearest town (6 miles away) and back on Wednesdays. If you don't have have a car you either need to get groceries delivered or buy as much as you can carry once a week. The nearest rail station is 15 miles away.

The council charters coaches to get kids to/from the closest school - we'll be paying £800 a year for this from September. BTB Junior has a bicycle but the local roads are pretty dodgy in daylight let alone in the dark (unlit, unrestricted, mostly single track with passing places). There are no pavements either, so people don't tend to walk any distance without wearing hi-vis.