£5000 subsidy for electric cars.

[turbobloke]

ewenm said:

turbobloke said:

ewenm said:

As a G-Wizz driver said on the news, they are great if you do relatively few miles a day and always in an urban environment.

And avoid collisions of any severity beyond a bumper scuff with a well-built petrol or dieel engined car, e.g. BMW, Merc, Volvo. If a black cab hit one of those toys there's be nothing left (of the toy).

Amazingly, I tend to do that anyway whichever car I'm in, bike I'm on or trainers I'm wearing.

Me too. Just thinking aloud. The problem will eventually arise when somebody doesn't manage to avoid it, and they are killed for the cause.

[sleep envy]

XitUp said:

s2art said:

otolith said:

sleep envy said:

Prius?? efficient?

have a word

Relative to anything running on petrol with a civilised number of cylinders!

Doubt it when everything is taken into account.

It is.

do you have any back up for whole life cycle costs?

[ewenm]

turbobloke said:

ewenm said:

turbobloke said:

ewenm said:

As a G-Wizz driver said on the news, they are great if you do relatively few miles a day and always in an urban environment.

And avoid collisions of any severity beyond a bumper scuff with a well-built petrol or dieel engined car, e.g. BMW, Merc, Volvo. If a black cab hit one of those toys there's be nothing left (of the toy).

Amazingly, I tend to do that anyway whichever car I'm in, bike I'm on or trainers I'm wearing.

Me too. Just thinking aloud. The problem will eventually arise when somebody doesn't manage to avoid it, and they are killed for the cause.

I reckon electric cars have a place, but the CO2 lowest-common-denominator marketing/propaganda is just pathetic. My main fear is that when I'm out training I'll have to be much more careful crossing roads as the damn things are too quiet

[XitUp]

turbobloke said:

XitUp said:

s2art said:

otolith said:

sleep envy said:

Prius?? efficient?

have a word

Relative to anything running on petrol with a civilised number of cylinders!

Doubt it when everything is taken into account.

It is.

Presumably you're one of the individuals who hasn't read the CNW Marketing Research report in full but went over to a green blog to get the propaganda summary version? The so-called environmental costs associated with design, construction, shipping, servicing, repair, and end-of-life decommissioning outweigh the small gains in road-use for a Pious and its ilk. If anybody believes in evil lemonade fizz, stick to your old car. The rest of us can carry on doing what we like and kick out the green-red hybrid party at the next election...not that the blue green hybrid replacement will be infinitely better but such is life.

No, I've read it.
I've also read the MIT report which totally debunks it.
I'll take the findings of one of the most prestigious research universities in the world over that of a marketing company, but it's up to you who you want to trust.

[sleep envy]

ewenm said:

As a G-Wizz driver said on the news, they are great if you do relatively few miles a day and always in an urban environment.

you mean like all the other public transport passengers?

see kids, lentilism fks you up

just say no

[ewenm]

sleep envy said:

ewenm said:

As a G-Wizz driver said on the news, they are great if you do relatively few miles a day and always in an urban environment.

you mean like all the other public transport passengers?

see kids, lentilism fks you up

just say no

The tube seems to work quite well for an electrically powered transport system. Certainly works better than public transport in any other UK city. I wonder why the gov aren't mandating electric buses?

[otolith]

ewenm said:

I wonder why the gov aren't mandating electric buses?

Because socialised transport is good and private transport is bad. This is axiomatic, keep up at the back

[thinfourth2]

peterperkins said:

Groober said:

reading all the news stories really infuriates me. The only concerns they seem to think the public have is affordability. At the end of the day I dont want an electric car wether it costs 50k or 50p. I love my petrol powered cars, the noise, the smell on a cold winter morning. I dont really need a car but I have one because I love motoring. The dawn of the electric car will suck big time and looks to spell the end for petrolheads like you and me.

What will become of our dear old friend the engine?

Sorry Groober time and the march of technology waits for no man.

Like the zillions of things that have come and gone in history the IC car, the hybrid and battery EV will come and go as something else "better" takes it's place. The IC has had a good innings but it's time to move on.

I'm not saying all old IC cars should be rounded up and crushed, they will just fade away as they become less desirable due to tax breaks, impossibly priced fuel, accidents etc.

Their numbers will be slowly whittled down but they will linger on with enthusiasts and collectors like you and me perhaps, brought out for a special trip at weekends.

They will fade away into obscurity becoming the objects of curiosity at some 22nd century nostalgia museum.

Yep just like the horse has completely disappeared from the country after the car replaced it

[turbobloke]

XitUp said:

turbobloke said:

XitUp said:

s2art said:

otolith said:

sleep envy said:

Prius?? efficient?

have a word

Relative to anything running on petrol with a civilised number of cylinders!

Doubt it when everything is taken into account.

It is.

Presumably you're one of the individuals who hasn't read the CNW Marketing Research report in full but went over to a green blog to get the propaganda summary version? The so-called environmental costs associated with design, construction, shipping, servicing, repair, and end-of-life decommissioning outweigh the small gains in road-use for a Pious and its ilk. If anybody believes in evil lemonade fizz, stick to your old car. The rest of us can carry on doing what we like and kick out the green-red hybrid party at the next election...not that the blue green hybrid replacement will be infinitely better but such is life.

No, I've read it.
I've also read the MIT report which totally debunks it.

None of the reports on it totally debunk it, they have similar symptoms to the document they attack. As is expected for heresy against the unsubstantiated credo of the new green religion. I'll no doubt get damned to Gaia Hell for posting this, but as the whole facade is ecoclaptrap I'll drive easy in my V8s.

[ewenm]

otolith said:

ewenm said:

I wonder why the gov aren't mandating electric buses?

Because socialised transport is good and private transport is bad. This is axiomatic, keep up at the back

But surely electric buses tick both the "socialised transport good" and "non-fossil fuel good" boxes?

[turbobloke]

ewenm said:

otolith said:

ewenm said:

I wonder why the gov aren't mandating electric buses?

Because socialised transport is good and private transport is bad. This is axiomatic, keep up at the back

But surely electric buses tick both the "socialised transport good" and "non-fossil fuel good" boxes?

Putting aside any devilish advocacy and tongue in cheekness, why would anybody who cares about the environment travel in a diesel engined bus? Even with particulate traps and the rest, some 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP will still be released into the atmosphere and those two chemicals are the two most genotoxic carcinogens known to science, produced more in buses than most other vehicles because of the combiation of a large diesel engine and all day stop-start driving. In standard Ames tests of carcinogenicity, only 0.0000003 grammes of these pollutants caused 6 and 5 million mutations respectively. In addition, driving a car keeps you healthier than using public transport. An NHS related study proved it, though it was ironic that the study set out originally to try and prove the opposite. We're talking about published research here in both cases.

[sleep envy]

ewenm said:

The tube seems to work quite well for an electrically powered transport system. Certainly works better than public transport in any other UK city.

want to bet?

ETA - elec is pretty much a given for the tube in any case for the obvious reason

Edited by sleep envy on Thursday 16th April 18:12

[otolith]

ewenm said:

otolith said:

ewenm said:

I wonder why the gov aren't mandating electric buses?

Because socialised transport is good and private transport is bad. This is axiomatic, keep up at the back

But surely electric buses tick both the "socialised transport good" and "non-fossil fuel good" boxes?

Those black clouds emanating from the exhausts of public transport vehicles are particles of magic pixie dust, which help give the pink lungs of small children a rosy glow. The carbon dioxide in the exhaust is magic IPCC-certified virtuous CO2, which is why it's not necessary to tax it at the same rate as the evil CO2 emissions from cars. Hence, there is no problem to solve! You can tell there is no problem to solve, because those disinterested and impartial folks at Transport2000 The Campaign For Better Transport (who are by no means simply a lobby group for the public transport industry and unions) would be banging on about electric buses if there were any need for them.

Nurse! More drugs!

[Killer2005]

ewenm said:

sleep envy said:

ewenm said:

As a G-Wizz driver said on the news, they are great if you do relatively few miles a day and always in an urban environment.

you mean like all the other public transport passengers?

see kids, lentilism fks you up

just say no

The tube seems to work quite well for an electrically powered transport system. Certainly works better than public transport in any other UK city. I wonder why the gov aren't mandating electric buses?

There was talk of setting up a tram system in Leeds similar to Sheffield and Manchester but the government decided that keeping the current buses and trains would be a far better idea

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

XitUp said:

turbobloke said:

XitUp said:

s2art said:

otolith said:

sleep envy said:

Prius?? efficient?

have a word

Relative to anything running on petrol with a civilised number of cylinders!

Doubt it when everything is taken into account.

It is.

Presumably you're one of the individuals who hasn't read the CNW Marketing Research report in full but went over to a green blog to get the propaganda summary version? The so-called environmental costs associated with design, construction, shipping, servicing, repair, and end-of-life decommissioning outweigh the small gains in road-use for a Pious and its ilk. If anybody believes in evil lemonade fizz, stick to your old car. The rest of us can carry on doing what we like and kick out the green-red hybrid party at the next election...not that the blue green hybrid replacement will be infinitely better but such is life.

No, I've read it.
I've also read the MIT report which totally debunks it.

None of the reports on it totally debunk it, they have similar symptoms to the document they attack. As is expected for heresy against the unsubstantiated credo of the new green religion. I'll no doubt get damned to Gaia Hell for posting this, but as the whole facade is ecoclaptrap I'll drive easy in my V8s.

I read CNW's report cover to cover and I'm on XitUp's side on this.

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

XitUp said:

turbobloke said:

XitUp said:

s2art said:

otolith said:

sleep envy said:

Prius?? efficient?

have a word

Relative to anything running on petrol with a civilised number of cylinders!

Doubt it when everything is taken into account.

It is.

Presumably you're one of the individuals who hasn't read the CNW Marketing Research report in full but went over to a green blog to get the propaganda summary version? The so-called environmental costs associated with design, construction, shipping, servicing, repair, and end-of-life decommissioning outweigh the small gains in road-use for a Pious and its ilk. If anybody believes in evil lemonade fizz, stick to your old car. The rest of us can carry on doing what we like and kick out the green-red hybrid party at the next election...not that the blue green hybrid replacement will be infinitely better but such is life.

No, I've read it.
I've also read the MIT report which totally debunks it.

None of the reports on it totally debunk it, they have similar symptoms to the document they attack. As is expected for heresy against the unsubstantiated credo of the new green religion. I'll no doubt get damned to Gaia Hell for posting this, but as the whole facade is ecoclaptrap I'll drive easy in my V8s.

I read CNW's report cover to cover and I'm on XitUp's side on this.

When the criticisms of CNWMR are so flimsy, that's not a good recommendation. Do you wear beige?

[XitUp]

In what way are they flimsy?

[ewenm]

sleep envy said:

ewenm said:

The tube seems to work quite well for an electrically powered transport system. Certainly works better than public transport in any other UK city.

want to bet?

ETA - elec is pretty much a given for the tube in any case for the obvious reason

Which UK city has a better public transport system than London? Having lived and worked in a few UK cities, I haven't found it yet. Anyway, wildly off topic, my original point was that electric cars need battery technology to catch up before they're even worth considering.

[turbobloke]

XitUp said:

In what way are they flimsy?

They were flimsy because the critics had nothing on which to base them except preconceived notions and received wisdom. Before going further into this I should point out that I have no personal interest in the Report being correct or incorrect in the overall conclusion sense, it's the lack of any foundation for refuting it that grates, particularly as these so-called debunks came from so-called scientists. However I have a fairly long and detailed history of enquiring into claims by eco-types and finding a lot to be desired, so my language can be colourful but usually not indecent. As I haven't studied the CNWMR methodology (see below, as this is a key point) I'm going to focus on the common criticisms aimed at the Report to indicate some of the equally common fallacies within these.

Detractors pointed out that the CNWMR Report wasn't peer reviewed. This is a ludicrous, fatuous remark since the Report was a commercial product not an exercise conducted within the walls of academe, also because - as far as seen - none of the criticisms were peer reviewed either, though they may have been passed around a tree under the principles of collective hugging. The reason why critics whine about this is that the usual censorship from green establishment gatekeepers wasn't able to operate and some facts emerged into daylight that confounded environ mentalists and their self-righteous stranglehold over the media. No wonder the greens were apoplectic (for a change).

At the time of publication by their critics, CNWMR had said they were than happy to provide 'data points' to assist another research organisation in performing its own study. No such requests were received. As CNWMR said: "An intention to duplicate requires a request for more details or simply to initiate a conversation about the types of data gathered. None has been received from any credible organization. And, no, we do not believe Rocky Mountain Institute is credible in this regard because, as mentioned, it is wrapped in a clear agenda."

CNWMR refused to release full details of their methodology but they made no secret of the one thing behind this decision - that they are a for-profit organisation and their business interests are material, their IPR remain theirs alone. They don't receive grants or other largesse from public institutions, foundations, donors, endowments or other freebies like the vested interests ranged against them. They have however said they would release their methodology to any other research organisation with an unbiased interest in the issue.

This aspect is a critical one and reveals the vacuous nature of CNWMR's attackers: without access to the detailed methodology, no criticism can be aimed at the Report beyond "it doesn't agree with previous studies" which is no criticism at all, and "we don't like the results" which isn't a valid criticism either. Nor is gasping about heresy against the new green religion. Beyond full methodology disclosure, which didn't happen, the Report authors said they received three substantive requests for further data on the study and in all cases they supplied exactly what was requested.

CNWMR said:

We always ask ... folks to read the entire report first instead of relying on blogs

Good advice, rarely followed.

CNWMR made it clear they did not question either Argonne or MIT but questioned life-cycle studies that were incomplete.

CNWMR said:

One very simple example: Prius tires last approximately one quarter of the miles of those on a Toyota Corolla. No Prius life-cycle study, aside from ours, calculates the energy and resources consumption necessary to make those additional three sets of tires. Nor does any other life-cycle study of Prius or any other vehicle include calculations reflecting they types of replacement tires purchased. Better than half of all Prius tire replacements are with less efficient, off-the-rack brands that significantly harm Prius fuel economy.

Complete with American spelling, this shows the level of detail the methodology does entail, whatever its other attributes are. The Report has many other examples. Some critics argued that the Report didn't take into account likely fuel price (oil/gas) changes over the life cycle of petrol and diesel engined vehicles, but that was simply incorrect. As you've read the report you'll know or can look up the page number. Moving on:

CNWMR said:

As for our agenda, it is simple. We want consumers to be able to make a vehicle choice based on data, not feel-good, back-slapping atta boy you're saving the planet emotions. The more information consumers have the better. In this case, the Prius is a complex vehicle that is inferior to a Jetta Diesel, for example, in any measurement of life-cycle energy efficiency. There is a reason Toyota is planning to switch to lithium ion batteries. There is a reason Toyota has reduced the size of the controller system, motors and other electric-drive components. The answer is cost and efficiency. In a purely comparative sense, the first Prius is rapidly becoming a relic when compared to what's coming.

In response to the predictable ad hominem attacks, the Report autghors point out that their credentials come from more than 20 years of performing automotive research and understanding what consumers are looking for and how they will spend the money they have.

CNWMR said:

The first Dust to Dust report listed the actual real-world mileage for Prius at 46 mpg. We heard from angry Prius owner that such a figure was bunk and we clearly were in the pocket of General Motors, the oil industry, the CIA or some other nefarious evil doer. Toyota, the media and Slate were similarly busy pronouncing much higher mpg numbers. The EPA, after revising its fuel economy ratings, lowered it numbers to 47 mpg. Considering we were two years ahead of the revision, I would say that kind of accuracy adds to our credibility. Scientific inquiry doesn't mean agreeing with proponents of one view or another or owners of one product or another. It demands constant questioning of the consensus or the predominant theory. Internally, we have been the harshest critic of D2D and have added, subtracted and adjusted points in the methodology to improve the accuracy. That's what good scientific inquiry does. It won't reveal, however, what Prius and hybrid owners would like. Hybrids may be a good profit center for automakers, they may generate good personal feelings about oneself, but they continue to be less energy efficient over their lifetime than the industry average or some significantly larger vehicles. And diesels make both hybrid and gaspowered vehicles look positively wasteful.

Previous reports of vehicle energy consumption were less thorough, and because the original and subsequent revisions to Report content turned the figures on their head and embarrassed feelgood greens, the nature of the response from public sector minions and grant-fed so-called scientists was predictable but woeful. Unless these so-called scientists engaged in industrial espionage and stole the CNWMR methodology they simply have no basis for their destructive comments, beyond bias and ideology as already indicated.

[XitUp]

I'm pretty sure most peoples problem with their report was that they gave the Prius a life cycle of three times shorter than other cars...