I haven’t done the maths, but most electricity is not green, the car is heavy, and batteries are far from green being full of toxic chemicals. However these people have done the calculations: www.ft.com/content/a22ff86e-ba37-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83f...2
Sorry mate - that's behind a paywall. And it IS the FT, which these days isn't exactly considered to be an 'unbiased source'. I would've hoped that by now one of more of our engineering or science institutes would've carried out some kind of study of this nature. The problem is, as I said above, is that EVs widely vary in their make-up - size, performance, type and amount of batteries, trim, etc. I doubt if, at present anyway, anyone could definitively say either 'all' or 'most' EVs are a worthwhile buy over the long term.
|
I haven’t done the maths, but most electricity is not green, the car is heavy, and batteries are far from green being full of toxic chemicals. However these people have done the calculations: www.ft.com/content/a22ff86e-ba37-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83f...2
Sorry mate - that's behind a paywall. And it IS the FT, which these days isn't exactly considered to be an 'unbiased source'. I would've hoped that by now one of more of our engineering or science institutes would've carried out some kind of study of this nature. The problem is, as I said above, is that EVs widely vary in their make-up - size, performance, type and amount of batteries, trim, etc. I doubt if, at present anyway, anyone could definitively say either 'all' or 'most' EVs are a worthwhile buy over the long term.
How odd, I was able to view it originally, now I can’t. The OP did ask about specific vehicles, and there’s no doubt that EVs are trendy for virtue signalling reasons. Obviously not all owners buy for such reasons. I’m not sure why you think the FT is untrustworthy.
Even stranger, I can still view the article on my search page, but not via the link. Try to Google “Electric cars green image blackens beneath the bonnet”. The FT quote an MIT study which shows that lifetime CO2 emissions per km, which includes vehicle production and end of life, are highest for a BMW 750i xDrive at 385 units, lower for a Tesla Model S at 226 units and a bit lower for a Mitsubishi Mirage at 192 units. The Mirage is a much smaller car. But it makes the point in the OP. If you want to be greener, don’t drive a truck, electric or not. They also quote a study by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology which draws the same conclusions. An EV does produce significantly less CO2 per km than an equivalent petrol/diesel car, but a small conventional car is greener. This assumes conventionally generated electricity. And of course at present an EV costs more per km than normal cars.
|
|
The problem I'd have with 'lifetime CO2 emmissions per km' is based on a set number of kms that is driven. The CO2 usage will be vastly different for cars driven for low mileages to high mileages, similarly between those driven predominantly in urban areas at low speed to those on motorways at far higher speeds, even if the overal distance driven is the same.
Cost also has to factor into it, even if there were no taxes on EVs (including buying electricity), the vast majority of people still wouldn't be able to afford to buy an EV of the type (mainly size and range) they needed. I certainly wouldn't, not just on cost grounds, but over the years as an engineer, I've been required at no notice to go to meetings and site visits all over the country.
There are very few places to charge vehicles and often I wouldn't have time to stop for 30-45 mins to recharge mid trip. I don't have any facility to charge an EV at home as I live in a flat on a private development (not unusual), where we'd have to save up for many years to pay for adequate and secure facilities. Not one of my workplaces has an EV charging facility, though a nearby office at my last job had one. The car park for all offices in the development was for 150+ cars. I would also need a car that could comfortable take 4 people and accommodate my stowage needs as regards the boot (a cheap-ish Zoe for example wouldn't be big enough).
How 'green' EVs are is meaningless unless they are affordable over their lifespan of ownership and at the point of sale (including adequate charging facilities), and they are actually no so polluting across the board, not just for a few well-off individuals living in cities and affluent who can afford them, exporting their pollution (to produce the electricity) to areas away from them.
|
The article I quote, and an easy to find Guardian one, include build cost and end of life cost. If you do very low miles, petrol/diesel win. But if you do typical mileage, electric wins. Here is another summary:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_t...r
They provide a table assuming 93,000 miles. If you do 200,000 miles then an EV wins easily, assuming the battery can manage that which is questionable. Note the mention of environmental damage from producing batteries.
|
|
Yeah - that's always the problem with comparisons - given the wide variance in usage patterns as well as the costs from make to make, there's no definitive anser, especially when most people change jobs and move home from time to time, meaning that what worked one year doesn't the next.
To be honest, if car makers were to REALLY go to town, they could quite easily design and manufacture car that were very modular, safe and robust/reliable, meaning they could easily last for decades and require minimal maintenance other than cleaning, lubrication and changing our parts that will always wear out, such as brakes, wipers and tyres.
The 'engine' parts, especially if they were electric or, like trains and one hyper car (not sure if its a McLaren or a BMW), are ICE that generate electricity only and the electric motors drive the wheels. Then a whole 'energy production engine' could just be replaced when eventually it wears out or is superseded by new tech. Once EVs do take over, this will probably be the norm, perhaps with people replacing body panels if they have a crash or want a change in the look.
Of course, if this were to happen at the moment, such cars would like cost a fortune, as it would mean that the service and parts depts of dealerships (main and indies) would become little more than your local Kwik Fit, probably leading to many (and parts suppliers) going out of business due to lack of regular custom.
I suspect it would reduce the carbon footprint of the cars over their lifetime: too much of our current tech is throw-away or is very difficult, labour/energy intensive to recycle, and, as you say, utilises many harmful elements and chemicals in their manufacture and composition, many of which are very scarce and difficult (again, enegery intensive) to obtain.
One of the few good things to ever come of the London Mayor's office was the 'Be Lean, Be Clean and Be Green' approach to energy usage (something I regularly had to use as a principle for my job as a mechanical engineer in construction). If we reduce demand (as I mentioned in an earlier post) in many areas of energy use, we can improve our environment by reducing energy usage considerably, as well as congestion and air pollution and its effects.
|
Yeah - that's always the problem with comparisons - given the wide variance in usage patterns as well as the costs from make to make, there's no definitive anser, especially when most people change jobs and move home from time to time, meaning that what worked one year doesn't the next.
To be honest, if car makers were to REALLY go to town, they could quite easily design and manufacture car that were very modular, safe and robust/reliable, meaning they could easily last for decades and require minimal maintenance other than cleaning, lubrication and changing our parts that will always wear out, such as brakes, wipers and tyres.
The 'engine' parts, especially if they were electric or, like trains and one hyper car (not sure if its a McLaren or a BMW), are ICE that generate electricity only and the electric motors drive the wheels. Then a whole 'energy production engine' could just be replaced when eventually it wears out or is superseded by new tech. Once EVs do take over, this will probably be the norm, perhaps with people replacing body panels if they have a crash or want a change in the look.
Of course, if this were to happen at the moment, such cars would like cost a fortune, as it would mean that the service and parts depts of dealerships (main and indies) would become little more than your local Kwik Fit, probably leading to many (and parts suppliers) going out of business due to lack of regular custom.
I suspect it would reduce the carbon footprint of the cars over their lifetime: too much of our current tech is throw-away or is very difficult, labour/energy intensive to recycle, and, as you say, utilises many harmful elements and chemicals in their manufacture and composition, many of which are very scarce and difficult (again, enegery intensive) to obtain.
One of the few good things to ever come of the London Mayor's office was the 'Be Lean, Be Clean and Be Green' approach to energy usage (something I regularly had to use as a principle for my job as a mechanical engineer in construction). If we reduce demand (as I mentioned in an earlier post) in many areas of energy use, we can improve our environment by reducing energy usage considerably, as well as congestion and air pollution and its effects.
I happened upon the River Simple by accident. It just so happened that the guy in charge wrote a piece in a motoring magazine i read. Intrigued, i looked into what they were up to and was very impressed by their aims. That is to make a car which is as eco friendly as possible, for the its whole life cycle, and aiming to encourage owners to keep it for longer rather than chop it in for a new one every 2 or 3 years.
www.riversimple.com/
Then there was Gordon Murray's brilliant T25 city car concept, which, sadly, no manufacturer seems to be willing to take on. Designed to be cheap to make, handle well (despite its dimensions), safe and very light.
images.hgmsites.net/lrg/gordon-murray-design-t25-m...g
|
|
<< I looked into what they were up to and was very impressed by their aims. That is to make a car which is as eco friendly as possible, for the its whole life cycle, >>
Of course (as I suggested above) anyone genuinely intending to be truly 'green' would not use a car at all. As it is, we just like to feel smug that we are slightly greener than some others ... :-(
|
<< I looked into what they were up to and was very impressed by their aims. That is to make a car which is as eco friendly as possible, for the its whole life cycle, >>
Of course (as I suggested above) anyone genuinely intending to be truly 'green' would not use a car at all. As it is, we just like to feel smug that we are slightly greener than some others ... :-(
No, you don't need to go to that extreme. It should be about how you make something more sustainable so that rather than using finite resources you create new that can be re-used/recycled/grown etc. That way as humans we still get to progress but do it in a sustainable way.
|
|
<< It should be about how you make something more sustainable so that rather than using finite resources you create new that can be re-used/recycled/grown etc. That way as humans we still get to progress but do it in a sustainable way. >>
Well, yes, that is the ideal aim. But as we all know, it takes a large chunk of energy just to put a new vehicle through the factory, so 'recycling' doesn't really come very cheap in energy terms. Electric cars may look good for our urban environment, but they need huge batteries containing a lot of metals (some rare) which come from parts of the world we don't worry much about despoiling.
Our customary way to dump unwanted cars - once some useful parts have been removed - is to put the whole thing in the crusher. That doesn't help in separating metal from plastics etc. for recycling.
So the most sustainable way to keep driving may be to keep the cars we have running as long as we can. The makers won't like that idea much, and their most recent offerings look like becoming expensive to keep running for many years anyway.
|
|
Indeed, as I said above. Look how many cars nowadays come with parts that you have to replace entire sections (e.g. light clusters) or have to spend ages getting to them via circuitous routes, costing a small fortune in labour costs and junking many perfectly good components just to replace one little bit.
A neighbour had their car bumped into recently - very little actual damage, but it couldn't be repaired (front light cluster again as well as the bumper and LHS panel) and will cost between £1k and £1.5k to replace.
Even my own 12yo car's front fog lamp lens would end up costing me over £150 to replace unless I can source just the cover from a reputable source (only an ebay source with a poor grasp of English @ about £15), as Mazda only sell the entire module.
That's assuming the cover actually fits (it could be a cheapo knock-off) and my dealership is willing to try to fit a non-Mazda part, which will still require at least 30 mins, taking the wheel well and front bumper off. Even the cheapo part would probably end up costing me £60. I remember changing a headlight bulb on my old 90s Micra - it took less than 5 mins in total. I thought about trying to access the MAF sensor and throttle body flap on my car so I could clean both, but both look like workshop jobs (not so bad on other models - more difficult on mine to get acces to all the air ducting.
Cars should be made simple and easy to work on, with consumables easy for ANY driver to change out, not just experienced people. If we did that, many cars/vehicles could be made far more robustly so they lasted decades and could change out individual parts or whole swathes when the tech improves. Both would significantly reduce the energy consumed to build and keep vehciles in good running order.
|
|
They designed cars like that in the 70/80's Andy and built them right up into the later 90's and early noughties depending on maker, the problems is those cars lasted too long and most half decent home mechanics could do all but the most involved jobs themselves, often using quality aftermarket parts to boot.
They won't make that mistake again, and it's one of the reasons i persist with my older Japanese built cars, in fact i learned how good Toyotas and Datsuns and Mitsis were in the 70's in my kerbside cowboy days, and i could kick myself for not sticking with proper Japanese cars all the way through my motoring life...thinking back not one of my Japanese built cars has ever let me down or had a serious failure, even when SWMBO wrote my 70 series Landcruiser off the thing refused to break down and if she'd hammered the front bumper off the front OS tyre it would still have got her home...that was after taking a section of Armco/railings out including the concrete footings at some 50mph.
Edited by gordonbennet on 11/02/2019 at 16:23
|
|
...and one of the reasons why I have yet to replace my 13yo Mazda3. As long as there are parts for it at reasonable prices, people can mork on them ok and the car doesn't fall to bit, then I'll stick with it for the time being, especially as money's tight at the moment.
I'll see what the forthcoming Mazda3 and Toyota Corolla are like as regards this, as I'll want to keep any replacement car for likely well over a decade.
|
|
Japanese cars had a reputation for being rust buckets, a problem now cured.
|
Indeed, as I said above. Look how many cars nowadays come with parts that you have to replace entire sections (e.g. light clusters) or have to spend ages getting to them via circuitous routes, costing a small fortune in labour costs and junking many perfectly good components just to replace one little bit.
A neighbour had their car bumped into recently - very little actual damage, but it couldn't be repaired (front light cluster again as well as the bumper and LHS panel) and will cost between £1k and £1.5k to replace.
Even my own 12yo car's front fog lamp lens would end up costing me over £150 to replace unless I can source just the cover from a reputable source (only an ebay source with a poor grasp of English @ about £15), as Mazda only sell the entire module.
That's assuming the cover actually fits (it could be a cheapo knock-off) and my dealership is willing to try to fit a non-Mazda part, which will still require at least 30 mins, taking the wheel well and front bumper off. Even the cheapo part would probably end up costing me £60. I remember changing a headlight bulb on my old 90s Micra - it took less than 5 mins in total. I thought about trying to access the MAF sensor and throttle body flap on my car so I could clean both, but both look like workshop jobs (not so bad on other models - more difficult on mine to get acces to all the air ducting.
Cars should be made simple and easy to work on, with consumables easy for ANY driver to change out, not just experienced people. If we did that, many cars/vehicles could be made far more robustly so they lasted decades and could change out individual parts or whole swathes when the tech improves. Both would significantly reduce the energy consumed to build and keep vehciles in good running order.
What you want is to go properly old School. Through spending far too much time looking up anything to do with cars on t'internet, i became aware of a few old cars still in production. I must point out, all are Russian, but it shouldn't be too difficult getting one into this country, should you want!. First up is the Lada Niva, now, apparently renamed simply "4x4" apart from the top of the range "Bronto"(?), but still very much the car which first appeared way back in 1977. Appears to have the same headlights and side light/indicator units as the original!. The 1.7 (83hp) petrol engine first appeared in 1993 but is closely related to the 1.6 of the original. Rather chunky looking in Bronto spec!
www.lada.ru/en/cars/4x4/bronto/about.html
Next up is the UAZ Hunter, which, depending on exact spec, looks all but identical to the 1971 UAZ 469, Russia's answer to the Land Rover.
uaz.global/cars/suv/hunter
Then, a vehicle which i would love, but not really sure why, possibly the automotive equivalent of a 'weird crush'!. Now know simply as the UAZ classic, this range of commercial 4x4's used to be named by a series of numbers depending on exact model, but the most popular was the 452. Nicknamed the 'Bukhanka' (loaf in Russian) as its appearance was likened to a loaf of bread!.
uaz.global/cars/commercial/classic
Amazing that those 2 UAZ's are still in production given how they look from a completely different era, but there are dealers as close as Belgium and Netherlands.
I'm sure there are other old cars still being made. Sadly the South African VW Citi Golf (a MK1 Golf very slightly modernised) is no longer amongst them, it went out of production in 2009. Though that was still 26 years after the MK2 was unveiled!. Still very popular as a used car in SA, and right hand drive too, hmmm!
cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/jxAMl/s1/2009-187327-vw-...g
|
|
Trouble is I wouldn't call these cars particularly from the safe and reliable school, and if they are made before the mid 90s (at least) then they aren't going to be very well rust proofed.
I'm not saying I want a car so simple a noice can do almost any work on it - no - I want a car that means I can change the bulbs (everywhere) each in 5-10 mins and a mechanic can get to all the parts that do require replacement or cleaning (that affect the performance and mpg of the car, like the throttle body flap and MAF sensor) to keep it in good nick without spending an hour just getting to them.
The 2.0 (petrol) version of my Mazda3 gen-1 can be accessed easier due to its engine bay being differently configured, so I wonder why the 1.6 petrol couldn't have been as well. Too many cars these days are, I think, either deliberately made so people cannot do simple maintenence duties on them at home or that its just easier to replace the dirty/worn/broken/faulty part rather than take it out and clean/fix it.
The MAF sensor, EGR and throttle bodies are such items that just them being dirty can have a large impact on performance and mpg. Another member of the Mazda3 forum said they carried out a clean on the MAF and TB and cut their hands quite a bit to undo the air ducting etc just to get to the parts in question - I saw a video of someone doing the same for the 2.0 and it was easy.
The daft thing is that my car is one of the better ones on ease of maintenance - a neighbour once gave me a jump start (I'd left mine too long idle and the battery had expired), but it took them about 15mins just to get it in a position to connect up the cables, thanks to VW's idiotic positioning of the connectors right under the windscreen.
More thought in modern cars needs to be given to maintenenace ergonomics, not just in the cabin. For many items that are now covered in the driving test, these (e.g. changing light bulbs) should be covered by law that they must be capable of being changed by someone with little mechanical knowledge of not much physical strength within 10 minutes. Me doing that: cost £5- £10 (including the part). Main dealer for some makes: £100 because of the labour time, never mind if the part is a sculpted LED bulb assembly.
|
Trouble is I wouldn't call these cars particularly from the safe and reliable school, and if they are made before the mid 90s (at least) then they aren't going to be very well rust proofed.
I don't know Andy, i suspect any car designed to endure the kind of climate you can get in Russia might be pretty rust resistant!. As for safety, yes, you are probably right, especially re the UAZ Bukhanka! (I'd still have one though). Unreliable?, possibly, but being as simple as they are, most things could probably be fixed with a big hammer and a length of baler twine. Knife and fork engineering!.
Edited by badbusdriver on 11/02/2019 at 18:44
|
Trouble is I wouldn't call these cars particularly from the safe and reliable school, and if they are made before the mid 90s (at least) then they aren't going to be very well rust proofed.
I don't know Andy, i suspect any car designed to endure the kind of climate you can get in Russia might be pretty rust resistant!. As for safety, yes, you are probably right, especially re the UAZ Bukhanka! (I'd still have one though). Unreliable?, possibly, but being as simple as they are, most things could probably be fixed with a big hammer and a length of baler twine. Knife and fork engineering!.
Well, I'm not one for much mechanic stuff apart from some very basic stuff. Saying that, the keeping it simple principle is definitely worth following, as the problems with modern diesel emissions systems demonstrate.
|
|
Probbly made with a big hammer and a length of baler twine. Hardly green though. Unless abandoned and grown over with weeds. Russians were (are) not concerned with safety, just watch you tube bpvideos of arussian driving. Eek.
|
|
<< I suspect any car designed to endure the kind of climate you can get in Russia might be pretty rust resistant! >>
If you are thinking in terms of road salt, BBD, then probably think again. Most parts of Russia get so cold in winter that there is no point using chemicals to thaw the ice - they just can't depress the freezing-point enough. I lived 3 years in the Canadian prairie, then drove my car to the east, where they used road salt as it wasn't as cold. Car started to fall apart soon afterwards.
|
|
Well, our 2003 Yaris and 2012 Jazz are both very easy to work on. Just upgraded Jazz's headlamp bulbs - took 5 minutes to change each one. Easy peasy..
Just changed Yaris lower front suspension arms.. even I could do it..An easy job once I was sent the correct arms...Parts for some engine sizes differ and also French vs Japan build on Toyota..
(As I diy and am getting elderly I check these things before I buy..No £1,000 LED lights for me thanks or very expensive 16" tyres on Jazz))
|
|
