BEVs

[Biospace]

I dug out the little list of things covered in this thread which I made a few weeks ago,



Large tax benefits exist for business users of BEVs (quoted case of 40% of purchase price reduction)

Some would feel uneasy asking to use a friend's or relative's electricity to top up a car battery

Jdsk provided a link to a very comprehensive website which quantifies BEV carbon emissions, https://climobil.connecting-project.lu/
Here is a graphic it produced for two VW Golfs, one electric, one ICE:

roubaixtuesday said "it's perfectly possible for EVs to be both better than ICE vehicles *and* really bad for the environment, and separating the emotions associated with those is hard"

Insurance companies are scrapping nearly new BEVs because of repair issues with batteries

"How will they help end our dependence on FF?" asks offroader

Nearholmer, "by adding car charging, a new load, to our night-time load, we (for the most part) add gas to the generation mix, so we really ought to count cars as charged not by “average grid mix”, but by “nearly all gas”, which hugely increases their carbon footprint. The marginal impact of this particular marginal addition is clear”

81% of the energy you pay for (of which about 5% is tax) goes to power the car. With petrol or diesel cars, only around 20-40% of what you pay for (which is typically 60-70% tax) powers the car - Biospace

Concerns are voiced about numbers of nuclear power stations required to help generate the energy

Will Faulty battery cells be treated in law in the same way as ICE with a fault when it comes to car sales?

“I don't see how we can argue that some people should not be allowed personal, motorised transport because they are not sufficiently intelligent, greedy, rich or 'important’.”

“Where is the lightweight, efficient motor car?”

Battery production energy carbon etc
2.2mill litres water for 1tonne lithium

Spen King mentioned

Tesla quality issues incl. poor suspension

UpWrong: Concerns raised by the inventor of the rechargeable lithium-ion battery:
“We need to reduce the 60 to 80 kilowatt-hours of electricity it takes to produce a 1-kWh battery,” he says. “We’ve got to find new manufacturing technologies.”
mention of scooter motor in BMW i3 prompted m/bike and m/scooter discussion

Mobesity - new word for me, which I like (both learning new words, and the use and meaning of this one)

Helmet requirements depend on track width of tricycle

[Biospace]

Some examples of specific individual decisions:

* Should I replace my car with another car or not?
* I'm going to replace my car with another car: should it be ICE or electric?
* How much range do I really need?

It would be great if the expertise demonstrated in this thread could be brought to bear on specific decisions rather than being used to jump around from one issue to another.

Jonathan

My response to someone who decided a car was a necessary part of their lives would be as follows:

An individual should consider carefully their use of the motor car. If it's mostly stop-start driving on highly congested raods then electric propulsion would be by far the best option. If mostly on open roads over longer distances, then a car which carries its own power station on board - an engine - makes sense. If towing trailers, carrying heavy loads and/or often a full complement of passengers over longer distances then having an engine does make sense.

Rowan Atkinson points out in his article, "The biggest problem we need to address in society’s relationship with the car is the “fast fashion” sales culture that has been the commercial template of the car industry for decades. Currently, on average we keep our new cars for only three years before selling them on, driven mainly by the ubiquitous three-year leasing model. This seems an outrageously profligate use of the world’s natural resources when you consider what great condition a three-year-old car is in"

Buying a new car when an existing one is reasonably economical (45mpg on average or better), reliable, comfortable and well suited to its use does not make sense even if it is 10 years old, for me, but I'm not led by fashion.

I find Teslas particularly unpleasant cars with poor road behaviour away from smooth roads, I'd really not want one. Suzuki make excellent cars, as do Toyota, Volvo, Honda and Kia (in no particular order). The BMW i3 is a car which at some point will very likely rise in value considerably, it's so unusually good - not just for a BMW, but as a car. The engineers were given fairly free rein and it shows since it offers what people need instead of what they think they need, I'll try and convince myself to own one at some point.

[al_yrpal]

Things I would pick out....

"Electric propulsion will be of real, global environmental benefit one day, but that day has yet to dawn."

"An environmentalist once said to me, if you really need a car (and you care about the environment....my words) buy an old one and use it as little as possible"

Both from Rowan Atkinson. Although his regular appearances at the Goodwood Revival confirm he is a petrol head!

Al

[Jdsk]

That day has dawned. The best accessible summary that I know is from Greenpeace:

"Electric cars are greener than petrol cars – but they’re far from perfect. Switching to electric cars is essential, but it’s not enough. Our transport system needs a rethink."
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/elec ... trol-cars/

And that's how this sort of stuff should be written up: identify the major issues and include the major advantages and disadvantages and all of the other things that need to be done. All in one place. With supporting evidence.

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

That day has dawned. The best accessible summary that I know is from Greenpeace:

"Electric cars are greener than petrol cars – but they’re far from perfect. Switching to electric cars is essential, but it’s not enough. Our transport system needs a rethink."
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/elec ... trol-cars/

And that's how this sort of stuff should be written up: identify the major issues and include the major advantages and disadvantages and all of the other things that need to be done. All in one place. With supporting evidence.

Jonathan

Nearly right, well nearly right as a start point for discussion and further analysis. The bit that’s wrong is that Greenpeace are not impartial authors, they already have their own agenda and perception of what the best direction of change is and their aim is to promote it, full stop. Now have some impartial, comprehensive and technically sound articles and we’ll all be better informed.

I read Greenpeace’s article and found it pretty lightweight and no where near as good as the robust conversation on this thread.

[Jdsk]

That day has dawned. The best accessible summary that I know is from Greenpeace:

"Electric cars are greener than petrol cars – but they’re far from perfect. Switching to electric cars is essential, but it’s not enough. Our transport system needs a rethink."
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/elec ... trol-cars/

And that's how this sort of stuff should be written up: identify the major issues and include the major advantages and disadvantages and all of the other things that need to be done. All in one place. With supporting evidence.

Nearly right, well nearly right as a start point for discussion and further analysis. The bit that’s wrong is that Greenpeace are not impartial authors, they already have their own agenda and perception of what the best direction of change is and their aim is to promote it, full stop. Now have some impartial, comprehensive and technically sound articles and we’ll all be better informed.

And one of the many advantages of writing as Greenpeace did and Atkinson didn't is that it makes it much easier to disagree and for others to assess the merits of that disagreement.

Jonathan

[al_yrpal]

Greenpeace are predictable with an agenda most reasonable people would disagree with. Whilst they should be listened to theres no reason to agree with them willy nilly. Like most self appointed 'environmentalists' they shoot themselves in the foot and marginalise themselves diminishing their influence.

Al

[the snail]

Greenpeace are predictable with an agenda most reasonable people would disagree with.

Nonsense. Most reasonable people can see that an unsustainable lifestyle is er.. unsustainable. I wouldn't take anything greenpeace say as fact, but Mr. Bean, seriously?

[Jdsk]

Greenpeace are predictable with an agenda most reasonable people would disagree with. Whilst they should be listened to theres no reason to agree with them willy nilly. Like most self appointed 'environmentalists' they shoot themselves in the foot and marginalise themselves diminishing their influence.

And because people disagree it's important to make your own case clearly, as they have done.

Instead of all this stuff about being "duped" and the related reactive rhetoric and polarisation.

They've laid out their argument on the need for EVs: where do you think that it is wrong?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

...
Most reasonable people can see that an unsustainable lifestyle is er.. unsustainable.
...

Yes. It often occurs to me that including a brief statement about the writer's views on climate change could save a lot of time in subsequent discussions.

Jonathan

[al_yrpal]

There are serious questionmarks over whether present day electric vehicles are actually good for the environment for all the reasons discussed here. The only clear good point is the potential reduction of environmental pollution in urban areas.

Al

[Jdsk]

There are serious questionmarks over whether present day electric vehicles are actually good for the environment for all the reasons discussed here. The only clear good point is the potential reduction of environmental pollution in urban areas.

Where does "good for the environment" come from? It will always be met by "not as good as not having powered vehicles" and we can then go off in another fruitless circle.

Reducing carbon dioxide emission is one of the things that we need to do to reduce the future harm caused by climate change.

EVs produce less carbon dioxide than ICEVs over the vehicle's life.

Jonathan

[al_yrpal]

Do they? You will have to Google irrefutable evidence. And, batteries, its not all about CO2. And, they all have to be new. Why scrap perfectly good low emission vehicles and avoid making new ones with dubious environmentally friendly batteries?

Al

[Jdsk]

...
And, batteries, its not all about CO2.
...

Total agree. And yet again demonstrating why it's better to have all of the major issues in a single document rather than cherrypicking them individually.

What did you think of Greenpeace's coverage of the problems with batteries?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

...
Why scrap perfectly good low emission vehicles and avoid making new ones with dubious environmentally friendly batteries?
...

Who has proposed doing that?

Thanks

Jonathan