|
In terms of efficiency, performance, low maintenance, longevity and emissions they’re way, way ahead.
|
In terms of efficiency, performance, low maintenance, longevity and emissions they’re way, way ahead.
Very likely. But so far the world is doing a collective beta-test. I still wonder whether the global supply of necessary minerals (for batteries especially) is able to support complete conversion to EV ownership ?
|
|
|
|
Absolute nightmare. If EVs were better than ICE, it wouldn't take a government ban on new ICEs to 'encourage' the public to switch over. the market would do that by itself. Even the so-called environmental benefits, putting aside whether man-made climate change is real (it isn't, the Romans had vineyars in England, then it got cold again for a while..), if the public really believed in the whole climate change scheme it wouldn't take harsh government intervention to force compliance.
EV will never match the brilliance of ICE.
Governments make laws to protect the well being and interests of those they are elected to serve/govern.
Hence laws governing (for instance) smoking and sale of tobacco, alcohol purchasing, which side of the road we drive on, what speed is permissible etc etc etc.
There are those who think smoking and tobacco represent no threat and believe they have the talent to drive at vast speeds. Most would regard them as deluded!
Climate change and the the transition falls into a similar category. Recent polls show ~75% of the public are very or somewhat worried about climate change.
Personally I am inclined to go with the deliberations of scientists with brains approaching the size of planets who have analysed billions of bits of data, modelled the climate in great detail using sophisticated and expensive computer models.
Or do I go with folk whose main claim to knowledge is the bloke down the pub or a bit of seaweed.
No contest!!!!
|
I don't really get why there has to be this EV Vs ICE competition. They're both just cars
But they have become two cults with fanboys in each camp.
It is same as two football clubs, Android vs iOS, Mac vs Windows etc. etc.
But for ICE vs EV case, the government is advocating one and is against another group. This is what causing all the problems.
If ICEs & EVs are left of their own in open playing field, consumers are very likely to stick with ICEs in foreseeable future and EVs may die down altogether. Hence, to keep EV project alive, government had taken anti-ICE stance.
The science behind climate change is open to debate and majority public has taken pushing of EVs as unnecessary interference with public life, which led to all sort of EV vs ICE fighting.
|
|
<< The science behind climate change is open to debate ... >>
Just like anything else. The big problem is that if the world and the global-warming deniers wait until the picture becomes incontrovertible, it will be far too late to take any worthwhile corrective action. I think the precautionary principle should be applied.
|
|
Thing is the world has always had climate change. We've had ice ages or tropical forests everywhere, summers of darkness quite recently, huge storms etc etc.
|
Thing is the world has always had climate change. We've had ice ages or tropical forests everywhere, summers of darkness quite recently, huge storms etc etc.
If that is meant as an excuse for ignoring present-day changes, it is thoughtless. Today's changes are happening far quicker than those you mention, with the exception of an asteroid impact. The changes you mention happened over millennia, not just a century or so. Or perhaps those dinosaurs operated a fossil-fuel economy ? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
To call people who are sceptical about man made Global Warming 'deniers' is using the language of religious fanaticism. If it can't be questioned it's not science, it's propaganda. In the early 1970s, climate 'experts' told us the world was heading rapidly towards another Ice Age..
Edited by martin.mc on 04/10/2023 at 10:30
|
Of course it can be questioned. But I suspect that no matter how many times you ask the question, or how you phrase the question, the answer will be the same.
The huge majority of data says that the planet is heating at an unprecedented rate.
Experts can change their views as technology improves. Doctors were actively promoting smoking in the middle of last century. Look how that turned out.
|
|
|
climate 'experts' told us the world was heading rapidly towards another Ice Age..
An ice age is long overdue. May be because of emissions it did not happen and hence we are alive & well. So global warming can't be that bad :-)
|
climate 'experts' told us the world was heading rapidly towards another Ice Age..
An ice age is long overdue. May be because of emissions it did not happen and hence we are alive & well. So global warming can't be that bad :-)
Tell that to people living in low lying countries like Bangladesh.
|
|
|
|
To call people who are sceptical about man made Global Warming 'deniers' is using the language of religious fanaticism. If it can't be questioned it's not science, it's propaganda. In the early 1970s, climate 'experts' told us the world was heading rapidly towards another Ice Age..
Climate has changed in the past - both hotter and colder.
There are clear differences compared to previous events:
- timescales are hugely compressed - rather than taking hundreds or thousands of years, it is likely to happen in several decades
- the impact of earlier changes on flora fauna and landscape is speculation, but today we are very aware of the consequences
- the proposition is that changes happening now are the result of the actions of humanity - earlier changes in climate were event driven (eg: volcanic) or cyclical
I agree the term denier is redolent of fanaticism. But I would personally place greater trust in the product of decades of scientific research conducted by the brightest in our society than the unevidenced assertions of those who chose to reject the analysis.
|
|
I am a simple soul.
My experience of 40 years living in the same house is that winters here used to consist of weeks of snow and ice with drifts in our yard of 1 meter deep and on the nearby moors of several meters. Now winter snow is at most 20cm deep and lasts 2-3 days. Average winters saw -15 to -20C on really cold nights: these have turned into -5 to -8C.
Ditto the melting glaciers in the Northern hemisphere.
Those who disagree it's climate change causing this have failed to come up with a credible cause.
|
|
|
|
To call people who are sceptical about man made Global Warming 'deniers' is using the language of religious fanaticism. If it can't be questioned it's not science, it's propaganda. .
There is a world of difference between questioning and denying. Deniers are those who refuse to accept scientific argument because they don't like to think about what it predicts.
It is foolish to deny global warming. It is reasonable to 'question' whether it is man-made, but that is by far the most likely explanation. IMHO, of course :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolute nightmare. If EVs were better than ICE, it wouldn't take a government ban on new ICEs to 'encourage' the public to switch over. the market would do that by itself. Even the so-called environmental benefits, putting aside whether man-made climate change is real (it isn't, the Romans had vineyars in England, then it got cold again for a while..), if the public really believed in the whole climate change scheme it wouldn't take harsh government intervention to force compliance.
EV will never match the brilliance of ICE.
It certainly won't match it, it will beat it into a cocked hat and blast into the future and leave you crying behind your rose tinted spectacles.
Edited by alan1302 on 04/10/2023 at 20:47
|
|
Haha, and it will leave EV drivers crying behind next EV owner for the charge point..
|
It is foolish to deny global warming
I don't think anyone here denying climate change, which is a fact proven by science.
But the debate is about
1. Whether climate change is bad
2. Whether it can be fixed by paying more taxes
3. Whether EV is the solution for it
4. and many more similar questions
Earth will survive at most 1 billion more years, more likely lot less.
Humanity will only survive if we are capable of interstellar travel in next few million years.
Future of humanity lies outside earth but of course, until that capability is achieved we need to nurture earth.
Mining and manufacturing of EV batteries emit considerable amount of greenhouse gases.
Granted they are at fewer places compared to ICE cars emitting all over the world, but the effect on earth as a whole is same.
Energy density of petrol/diesel is still many times higher than best EV batteries. EV technology is evolving and I feel pushing of EV to general public is premature. This is lot less to do with environment and more to do with political propaganda.
Take just one example - a cheap electric rail transport will take lot of car journeys off the road - which is good for environment. Then why this is not a priority? There is no push for electrification of railways and reducing fares (UK train fare is highest in Europe and buying ticket 3 months & 3 days advance for a specific 16:10 train is not a solution for cheaper travel). The HS2 has been a giant vanity project. When it will be operational very few people will be able to afford the fare.
|
|
Whether climate change is bad is a fair question - the scientific consensus is that it represents a real threat.
Long term impacts on sea level, flooding, rainfall, flora and fauna will be material - even if in the prosperous UK with a temperate climate they are largely capable of mitigation/adaptation.
It can't be fixed by taxation - it requires more than just fiscal action. EVs are part of that transition to enable the use of green energy. There are alternatives - eg: hydrogen and biofuels but right now they are not in the game.
Globally the climate change timeline can be measure in decades. Speculating on relocation to other planets is fantasy unlikely to be realised in less than centuries, probably millennia, possibly never. The earth will likely be swallowed by the sun in ~7.5bn years.
Approximately 40% of the rail network is currently electric but it carries ~ 75% of passengers. Freight is the largest user of diesel. Diesel trains are due to be phased out by 2040 - I assume as rolling stack needs replacement.
|
‘biofuels but right now they are not in the game.’
Biofuel is an interesting one, and a subject about which I haven’t done a lot of reading. But I did see a quote recently stating that one acre of land could power a car with biodiesel for 10,000 miles. Whereas the land area covered in solar arrays will power an EV for 700,000 miles.
Agrivoltaic farming is having good results, growing crops in fields full of solar arrays.
|
I did see a quote recently stating that one acre of land could power a car with biodiesel for 10,000 miles. Whereas the land area covered in solar arrays will power an EV for 700,000 miles..
I presume your figures relate to a yearly output - there has to be a time parameter somewhere to be meaningful ?
|
As I said, I haven’t done any reading about the subject, it just struck me as a big disparity in the figures.
Yes, there must be a time element involved somewhere.
|
I have never understood why those fanatical (arguably religious) about climate change cannot accept the viewpoint that while its agreed climate change is happening and has always happened, some of the ideas, changes and policies they wish to subject the wider population to are harmful.
Climate change can be a positive and a negative.
You also dont need to pick sides; i fully support the cleaning up of plastics out of the oceans, but i dont agree with a UK ICE new car sales ban by 2035z
I fully support not dumping raw sewage into the sea, but i an completely opposed to further taxing air travel using the environment as an excuse.
I fully support removing diesel and petrol engine vehicles that emit more than 250 Co2 emissions, but i strongly oppose the Welsh govt 20mph road speed change due to the economic damage and productivity damage it has caused while actually increasing Co2 emissions.
Back on topic, EVs still do not make sense to the majority of people including myself due to cost (way too expensive and thats before you insure them), lack of range (it is getting better) and disfunctional charging network.
I expect the range and charging network may sort itself out as often market forces will amend such issues, but i do not see anything that suggests a price drop, further increases seem more likely as the rare earth prices are still somewhat subdued.
Sadly with the targets the UK govt is imposing on manufacturers they will start to subsidise EVs by charging more for petrol cars to hit quotas. More economic madness from a so called Conservative party.
|
I fully support not dumping raw sewage into the sea, but I am completely opposed to further taxing air travel using the environment as an excuse. I fully support removing diesel and petrol engine vehicles that emit more than 250 Co2 emissions,...
In contrast to these views, I strongly suspect that air travel, which increased markedly from the 1950s onwards, flying jets in the upper atmosphere where their CO2 emissions were out of reach of plants, may have been a major contributor to the Earth's increased radiation blanket. So on that basis I think flying should not be so cheap, at least when compared with the cost of surface travel.
On the other hand, vehicle emissions are mainly restricted for health reasons, due not to CO2 (which we all emit) but to NO2 and particulates. So the 250 CO2 limit you suggest is rather unimportant on those grounds.
|
Sorry, I meant the NOX and particles.
A case in point, around the corner one of the neighbours drives an R reg black cab for a living. It smokes like a chimney, big plumes of black smoke shoot out after acceleration.
I have no idea how it passes an MOT each year, it’s been like this for a few years, we call it the taxi train as it reminds us of a steam train it smokes so badly.
This is the exact sort of vehicle that should be targeted to either fix the bad emission controls or be off the road.
Another case in point, a neighbour recently had some building work done and one of the trades arrived in a T plate Ford Transit van which again gave off plenty of black smoke. This is the sort of tired old vehicle that we can all agree is more harmful than it was originally designed to omit. Clearly the MOT system for old diesel vehicles is not fit for purpose based on the 2 examples I have provided.
Edited by daveyK_UK on 05/10/2023 at 18:01
|
This is the sort of tired old vehicle that we can all agree is more harmful than it was originally designed to omit. Clearly the MOT system for old diesel vehicles is not fit for purpose based on the 2 examples I have provided.
I agree. Perhaps the vehicles you describe are taken to an especially lenient tester ?
|
|
I am not sure I agree. Back in my diesel driving days, with a very healthy well serviced engine, when pulling away from the traffic lights at night, if I held 2nd gear just a bit longer than normal to blow out the cobwebs of town/city driving, I could pretty much block out the light emitted from the car behind. Those were the days… great fun!
|
I could pretty much block out the light emitted from the car behind. Those were the days… great fun!
Makes you sound like a right pain in the a*** to be driving behind.
|
I could pretty much block out the light emitted from the car behind. Those were the days… great fun!
Makes you sound like a right pain in the a*** to be driving behind.
No, that happened with diesels of that era. You could either 'give it some welly' to keep up with traffic, or pootle along and slowly release the soot whilst holding up those behind.
|
|
<< ... that happened with diesels of that era. >>
Yes, it could do, but it wasn't unavoidable. Occasional shots of injector cleaner used to improve things for a month or two.
|
|
No, that happened with diesels of that era. You could either 'give it some welly' to keep up with traffic, or pootle along and slowly release the soot whilst holding up those behind.
Its still happening on some Ford and Merc vans around 10 year old, I`ve been behind them so I know. and the odd coach!.
|
|
|
