BEVs

[Mick F]

We drove up to North Wales and back week or so ago. 300miles ish each way.
None stop other than a visit to the loo and a leg-stretch twice each way. Ten minute stops. Never needed petrol and used less than half a tank each way, but filled up just in case before we headed south.

We kept off the motorways as much as possible.

Cannot be done with an EV.

[Mike Sales]

Motorists often complain of congestion. I don't see that electric vehicles will help. Will we build more roads, which hasn't worked so far, or will those without a car continue to be deprived of the privilege? Will the roads continue to be as unpleasant for cycling and walking?

[geocycle]

The main problem is that even when presented by data, many people view the debate through their own lens. For some the issue is we just need fewer personal vehicles and so EVs are a way of perpetuating ownership. This would bring big societal benefits but difficulties for individuals without massive investments and be very hard for a government to deliver. Some people get satisfaction from motor vehicles and associate them with prestige, others have vested interest in the oil industry who want to protect their interests for as long as possible. Others just don't like change or anything that changes their behaviour even when the problems are pointed out. Costs are still a major factor for many and EVs are still overvalued by the market (demand>supply), which will change as the tech matures and secondhand market develops. Nevertheless most studies show environmental benefits to EVs over ICEs with some exceptions at the margin, and of course the assumption we all need ever larger, fast personal transport is the biggest challenge to reaping real environmental benefits.

[Jdsk]

Motorists often complain of congestion. I don't see that electric vehicles will help. Will we build more roads, which hasn't worked so far, or will those without a car continue to be deprived of the privilege? Will the roads continue to be as unpleasant for cycling and walking?

They'll reduce carbon dioxide emission.

We need to do a lot more than that single change to reduce pollution, improve health, and improve quality of life. As the Greenpeace article puts it:

"Switching to electric cars is essential, but it’s not enough. Our transport system needs a rethink."

"Electric vehicles are essential to meeting our climate targets, and that’s why the government and industry need to get serious about making them better. But whether they’re electric powered or fossil-fuelled, all cars put a burden on the environment. And when they’re allowed to dominate urban areas, they make the streets hostile and dangerous to everyone else. So the UK also needs to look beyond swapping our petrol and diesel cars with an equivalent fleet of electric ones."

"A transport policy fit for the current age wouldn’t just focus on electric cars. It’d combine them with major investments in public transport, broadband, car sharing, walking and cycling. Cars have wreaked havoc on the climate and warped our physical world. It’s time to push back on both fronts."

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

With all the fuss about the damn things, here and elsewhere, one might think that they were the solution to our transport problems. I often get the feeling that they are a salve for sore consciences.
Most of the discussion here is whether they can make a one for one substitute for the filthy ice, without having to change lifestyles, or about which variety of engine is marginally less polluting.

[Jdsk]

The main problem is that even when presented by data, many people view the debate through their own lens. For some the issue is we just need fewer personal vehicles and so EVs are a way of perpetuating ownership. This would bring big societal benefits but difficulties for individuals without massive investments and be very hard for a government to deliver. Some people get satisfaction from motor vehicles and associate them with prestige, others have vested interest in the oil industry who want to protect their interests for as long as possible. Others just don't like change or anything that changes their behaviour even when the problems are pointed out. Costs are still a major factor for many and EVs are still overvalued by the market (demand>supply), which will change as the tech matures and secondhand market develops. Nevertheless most studies show environmental benefits to EVs over ICEs with some exceptions at the margin, and of course the assumption we all need ever larger, fast personal transport is the biggest challenge to reaping real environmental benefits.

My emboldening.

What a lot of sense.

And asking and answering precise questions can help to avoid pointless repetitive polarised assertions. The need for a widespread switch (!) to BEVs from ICEVs doesn't mean that every individual should immediately scrap their 15 yr old car doing 1,000 miles per year. Or that every single journey will be as convenient as it was when powered by fossil fuel.

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

With all the fuss about the damn things, here and elsewhere, one might think that they were the solution to our transport problems. I often get the feeling that they are a salve for sore consciences.
Most of the discussion here is whether they can make a one for one substitute for the filthy ice, without having to change lifestyles, or about which variety of engine is marginally less polluting.

I was tempted to make the whole of the above into bold. Well said.

Electric cars certainly aren’t a good solution to transport problems and in someways I think they make matters worse. In the past we moved people about by electric tram and electric trolley bus; better public transport would be good and, as in previous years, electric is practical - and electric can now be ‘green’ generated too rather than from coal.

Oh yes, electric cars are great for the conscience. You can profess to caring and doing your bit and then do as you please regardless of the actual environmental and societal costs.

Changing lifestyles is what’s really needed rather than changing cars or propulsion systems. The former makes a difference and the latter is pretty much tinkering around the edge of the issue.

[Jdsk]

With all the fuss about the damn things, here and elsewhere, one might think that they were the solution to our transport problems. I often get the feeling that they are a salve for sore consciences.
Most of the discussion here is whether they can make a one for one substitute for the filthy ice, without having to change lifestyles, or about which variety of engine is marginally less polluting.

I was tempted to make the whole of the above into bold. Well said.

Electric cars certainly aren’t a good solution to transport problems and in someways I think they make matters worse.

Oh yes, electric cars are great for the conscience. You can profess to caring and doing your bit and then do as you please regardless of the actual environmental and societal costs.

Changing lifestyles is what’s really needed rather than changing cars or propulsion systems. The former makes a difference and the latter is pretty much tinkering around the edge of the issue.

Stating the problems that you're trying to solve is the first step towards rational discussion.

No comment in that reply about carbon dioxide emission, one of the biggest problems where BEVs can make things less bad than they would otherwise be. And that contribution isn't "minor".

Without that it all turns into a straw man argument... unless anyone can find a single example of someone saying that a switch to BEVs will solve all of the transport problems... anyone?

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

Battery Electric vehicles are becoming more and more of a common sight on our roads, governments are incentivising and subsidising their use and their image has been turned around completely over the last decade. Discussions surrounding them have repeatedly taken other threads off topic so I thought it might make sense for there to be a thread to talk about their qualities.

The multiple inefficiencies and harshness of the internal combustion engine were hated by engineers when they began to replace steam power, one of my great uncles refused to own a car because of this and travelled around on bicycles, by taxi, sailing boat and train. He would have been delighted with the introduction of the Nissan Leaf back in 2011.

Their batteries are a concern for environmentalists, as are the fossil fuels being burned to provide a large part of the energy to power them in many countries, but the lack of exhaust gases at point of use was taken up early on by our government as a very good reason to promote them. Good public infrastructure, especially where on street parking exists, has yet to be rolled out.

Battery technology has improved considerably since the Leaf first went on sale, the vehicles themselves still have some way to go on the development curve, which isn't to say they're not already very good. Perhaps like the early horseless carriages, there are aspects of ICEvs which have been carried through to BEVs which are no longer necessary? How might their increasing use affect the cyclist?

It’s interesting to reflect on the original post.

[Jdsk]

Discussions surrounding them have repeatedly taken other threads off topic so I thought it might make sense for there to be a thread to talk about their qualities.

My emboldening. And now vice versa.

We have a highly suitable thread to talk about all of the other important aspects of national transport strategy. It's called "National Transport Strategy":
viewtopic.php?t=155477

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

Thanks, Carlton.
We have forty eight pages of arguing about the trivial differences between the two varieties of excrescence, but hardly a mention of the option in the initial poll which received the most votes.
I do not think that I need to rehearse the non- CO2 problems with either choice. They are not trivial either, and the danger and sheer weight of numbers of cars are a serious obstacle to changing our transport modes for the better.
The carbon problem will not be solved without a reduction in motor traffic: changing to electric will not work.
I would like to mention two problems prominent in some of the media which depress me further. They are the El Nino onset, and mining of nodules from the deep sea bed.
I would hope for a different discussion from the members of this forum.
Again, changing to electric propulsion is a far from sufficient solution to the big problem of CO 2, and the demands on electricity generation make the fulfilling of our other energy needs harder.

[Jdsk]

...
The carbon problem will not be solved without a reduction in motor traffic: changing to electric will not work.
...

It isn't a matter of "working" or "not working". As with the power generation discussion this needs numbers. Switching from ICEVs to BEVs will make a worthwhile contribution to carbon dioxide emission being lower than would otherwise be the case.

Many other changes are also needed.

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

With all the fuss about the damn things, here and elsewhere, one might think that they were the solution to our transport problems. I often get the feeling that they are a salve for sore consciences.
Most of the discussion here is whether they can make a one for one substitute for the filthy ice, without having to change lifestyles, or about which variety of engine is marginally less polluting.

I was tempted to make the whole of the above into bold. Well said.

Electric cars certainly aren’t a good solution to transport problems and in someways I think they make matters worse.

Oh yes, electric cars are great for the conscience. You can profess to caring and doing your bit and then do as you please regardless of the actual environmental and societal costs.

Changing lifestyles is what’s really needed rather than changing cars or propulsion systems. The former makes a difference and the latter is pretty much tinkering around the edge of the issue.

Stating the problems that you're trying to solve is the first step towards rational discussion.

No comment in that reply about carbon dioxide emission, one of the biggest problems where BEVs can make things less bad than they would otherwise be. And that contribution isn't "minor".

Without that it all turns into a straw man argument... unless anyone can find a single example of someone saying that a switch to BEVs will solve all of the transport problems... anyone?

Jonathan

Are both Mikes Sales and I wrong then, well wrong as far as you’re concerned. I thought his comments rather good and reference data not really needed, when the obvious is stated does it really need verifying?

There have (already) been many demonstrations on this thread that BEV’s aren’t as perfect as we’re led to believe, I’m sure you could find data to confirm that if you chose to do so.

The best way to make cars less damaging to the environment, and I’m surprised that you and others haven’t latched onto this, is to severely limit their size and their power - small and low powered cars use fuel and materials much more economically - and after that to enable people to carry out their business without needing to resort to cars. Let the average annual car mileage drop to say 2000 miles instead of say 8000 miles.

[Mike Sales]

...
The carbon problem will not be solved without a reduction in motor traffic: changing to electric will not work.
...

It isn't a matter of "working" or "not working". As with the power generation discussion this needs numbers. Switching from ICEVs to BEVs will make a worthwhile contribution to carbon dioxide emission being lower than would otherwise be the case.

Many other changes are also needed.

Jonathan

Of course many other changes are needed, and I suspect the belief that spending on an electric vehicle provides a way to avoid tackling the difficult choices, and, as I said, salves consciences so that people can compliment themselves on doing their bit. And meanwhile, the road remains the preserve of cars, even heavier ones!, which works against active travel measures. The other changes are brought no closer: they are just postponed. And time is short.

[Jdsk]

Are both Mikes Sales and I wrong then, well wrong as far as you’re concerned. I thought his comments rather good and reference data not really needed, when the obvious is stated does it really need verifying?
...

What's the question about which we're disagreeing?

Is it whether the switch to BEVs is enough to solve all of our transport problems? I don't think that any of us think that it is.

Is it whether we need to reduce carbon dioxide emission? I think that we do. I understand Mike Sales to think that we do. I don't know your views.

Is it whether the switch to BEVs will make a major contribution to making carbon dioxide emission lower than would otherwise be the case? I think that it will. Sorry to shout but THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I THINK IT'S ALL THAT IS NEEDED... see the first question.

Jonathan