£5000 subsidy for electric cars.

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

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?

There's loads of stuff very easily findable that tells you what's wrong with the report. For a start, it's not even presented in any sort of serious fashion. They pretty much seem to say "Here's our report, but we're not giving you all the background information or proper data to show how we came up with the conclusions." As read, it just has some things in it that seem plain wrong. It makes assumptions about how far each type of car will travel and how long it will last that just don't make any sense to me, and it adds development costs to the actual costs of use to new models in a contrary fashion. Obviously, when a new model comes out, if you add all of the development costs to the first few examples that are sold you're going to get some pretty big numbers. But if the model is then sold in big numbers the development costs then get broken up into ever smaller fractions. It also brings in factors such as the distance people travel to get to the factory to make the car. That's fine, the people that make Hummers might walk to the Hummer factory, but if they walked to the factory and made a more economical car, the environmental consequences would be even less. The double-page advertising spread in Autocar a few years ago had a completely obvious error in it where it said that because Hummers last twice as long as Priuses, all of the environmental effects of the Hummer are halved. This is clearly not true, only the production and scrapping costs would be halved. I will admit that this might be because the person that summarised the report for the ad didn't understand the report - but I honestly dont think the people that wrote the report knew what they were on about.

[s2art]

XitUp said:

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

s2art said:

Doubt it when everything is taken into account.

xitup said:

It is.

Compared to something like an Audi A3 TFSI? I think not. Similar fuel consumption to the Pious but without all the battery technology with its concomitant energy costs in manufacturing and replacement.

Edited by s2art on Thursday 16th April 22:16

[deeps]

Electric cars...

£5000 subsidy they must think we were born yesterday.

I suppose people working in London might buy one.

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

There's loads of stuff very easily findable that tells you what's wrong with the report.

I know I've already found the 'serious' stuff but generally ignore blogs.

Randy Winkman said:

For a start, it's not even presented in any sort of serious fashion.

It could be written on toilet roll and still be correct, you just made no point at all. Superficial beyond belief.

Randy Winkman said:

They pretty much seem to say "Here's our report, but we're not giving you all the background information or proper data to show how we came up with the conclusions."

Indeed, the reader actually has to think for themselves, shocking. Your point here, as per my previous posts, shows how the claimed-to-be-serious challenges to it are unavoidably baseless - the critics know very little about the methodolody. Therefore, their own conclusions are invalid.

Randy Winkman said:

As read, it just has some things in it that seem plain wrong.

To a biased preconceived viewopint, probably.

Randy Winkman said:

It makes assumptions about how far each type of car will travel and how long it will last that just don't make any sense to me

They do to the US authorities.

Randy Winkman said:

it adds development costs to the actual costs of use to new models in a contrary fashion

I don't remember that but the report is over 400 pages long, which section(s) and/or page(s) are you referring to?

Randy Winkman said:

Obviously, when a new model comes out, if you add all of the development costs to the first few examples that are sold you're going to get some pretty big numbers. But if the model is then sold in big numbers the development costs then get broken up into ever smaller fractions.

That's noddy stuff, are you claiming CNWMR aren't aware of it?

Randy Winkman said:

It also brings in factors such as the distance people travel to get to the factory to make the car. That's fine, the people that make Hummers might walk to the Hummer factory, but if they walked to the factory and made a more economical car, the environmental consequences would be even less.

But they don't so we must stick with reality and your preconceived view of what an 'envieonmentally friendly' car is and what the 'consequences are.

Randy Winkman said:

The double-page advertising spread in Autocar a few years ago had a completely obvious error in it where it said that because Hummers last twice as long as Priuses, all of the environmental effects of the Hummer are halved.

It did?

Randy Winkman said:

I honestly dont think the people that wrote the report knew what they were on about.

Which is where we came in, but as you know so little about the CNWMR methodology you can't possibly criticise it so fully, basically with an insult - based on, presumably, your superior research? - nor can anybody else, particularly those claiming a scientific method. If you can't see this then your bias is showing more than you think.

The CNWMR Report methodology may be flawed but you don't know that and neither do other critics, so their pseudo-intellectual attacks are doomed to fail. Hopefully somebody some day with no axe to grind will duplicate their painstaking research, and the fact that it was so detailed is clear from reading the full Report.

[XitUp]

s2art said:

XitUp said:

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

s2art said:

Doubt it when everything is taken into account.

xitup said:

It is.

Compared to something like an Audi A3 TFSI? I think not. Similar fuel consumption to the Pious but without all the battery technology with its concomitant energy costs in manufacturing and replacement.

Edited by s2art on Thursday 16th April 22:16

No, the A3 gets about 10mpg less.
With loads higher NOx and HC emissions.

Got any info on how much polution the battery manufacture and recycling creates?

[turbobloke]

Just out of interest, regarding sources and criticism, take a look here:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~coreyp/hybridenvimp.h...

A site with berkely.edu in the URL quoting the Green Car Club as a source. Stunning. Then right at the foot of the piece the nickel extraction (what is it, 45 lbs needed for each Pious?) is mentioned but it looks to be typed at breakneck speed, in nothing-to-see-move-on fashion.

On a general note, having noted my interest as a scientist in all this but with no commercial or other vested interest, could those posting on a motoring forum indicate their reason for believing that hybrids are a good motoring choice, and whether they're members of Greenpeas / Fiends of the Earth / the Green Party - since there are so many vested interests lining up against CNWMR it would be iteresting to know, if people are prepared to tell and tell it as it is.

[XitUp]

turbobloke said:

Just out of interest, regarding sources and criticism, take a look here:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~coreyp/hybridenvimp.h...

A site with berkely.edu in the URL quoting the Green Car Club as a source. Stunning. Then right at the foot of the piece the nickel extraction (what is it, 45 lbs needed for each Pious?) is mentioned but it looks to be typed at breakneck speed, in nothing-to-see-move-on fashion.

Five lines about the batteries in the breakneck speed nothing-to-see-move-on bit, but only two in the over the top crazy hippy Green Car Club bit.
Not at all exagerating to make your point are you?

turbobloke said:

On a general note, having noted my interest as a scientist in all this but with no commercial or other vested interest, could those posting on a motoring forum indicate their reason for believing that hybrids are a good motoring choice, why, and whether they're members of Greenpeas / Fiends of the Earth / the Green Party - since there are so many vested interests lining up against CNWMR it would be iteresting to know, if people are prepared to tell and tell it as it is.

I believe that hybrids are a good motoring choice in certain circumstances because the evidence shows it.
I am not a member of Greenpeace (great joke about Greenpease), Friends of the Earth (oh man, another great joke, are you a profesional comedian?) or the Green Party.

[turbobloke]

Thanks for the compliments

Still you have no complete knowledge of the CNWMR methodology and so, like other detractors, your complaints cannot be substantiated. That's why it's only natural to ask about motive. With no evidence to back up your position why do you argue so vociferously?

[s2art]

XitUp said:

s2art said:

XitUp said:

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

s2art said:

Doubt it when everything is taken into account.

xitup said:

It is.

Compared to something like an Audi A3 TFSI? I think not. Similar fuel consumption to the Pious but without all the battery technology with its concomitant energy costs in manufacturing and replacement.

Edited by s2art on Thursday 16th April 22:16

No, the A3 gets about 10mpg less.
With loads higher NOx and HC emissions.

Got any info on how much polution the battery manufacture and recycling creates?

Nope the A3 gets approx 49MPG. The claims for the Pious were shown to be rather optimistic. And no, the NOx and HC are not loads higher.
WRT to the battery pollution, just google a bit. Its all there.

[XitUp]

turbobloke said:

Thanks for the compliments

Still you have no complete knowledge of the CNWMR methodology and so, like other detractors, your complaints cannot be substantiated. That's why it's only natural to ask about motive. With no evidence to back up your position why do you argue so vociferously?

Do you have complete knowledge of the CNWMR methodology? If not then your praise for it's report is as baseless as my complaints.
I have evidence to back up my position, the other studies I've mentioned.

s2art said:

Nope the A3 gets approx 49MPG. The claims for the Pious were shown to be rather optimistic. And no, the NOx and HC are not loads higher.
WRT to the battery pollution, just google a bit. Its all there.

They were shown to be optimistic? By whom? And did they also test the mpg for the Audi?

NOx are about 4 times higher, HC are about twice as high.

I'll let you give me a link to the battery info.

[s2art]

XitUp said:

s2art said:

Nope the A3 gets approx 49MPG. The claims for the Pious were shown to be rather optimistic. And no, the NOx and HC are not loads higher.
WRT to the battery pollution, just google a bit. Its all there.

They were shown to be optimistic? By whom? And did they also test the mpg for the Audi?

NOx are about 4 times higher, HC are about twice as high.

By every test there has been. All show approx high forties MPG.

Where do you get this information regarding emissions? The Audi has the more advanced engine and catalyst. It will be better than the Pious.

[sleep envy]

ewenm said:

Which UK city has a better public transport system than London?

not saying there is a better integrated system but the tube is generally ste

poorly maintained, expensive and a service that shuts at 12.30am on the w/e in a major city is appauling

[thinfourth2]

ewenm said:

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.

And theres the problem ladies and gentlemen.

Our lawmakers all live in London and are utterly baffled why I living in the north east of scotland would want to own a 4x4 when it is so much easier to jump on the tube to get to work. As they can easily get the tube to work why can't I as there is at least 3 tube stations within a mile of where they live. I must be some kind of planet killing monster if i don't walk to the nearest tube station and get the tube to work. Its so easy and quick.


My nearest tube station is 160miles away

[turbobloke]

XitUp said:

turbobloke said:

Thanks for the compliments
Still you have no complete knowledge of the CNWMR methodology and so, like other detractors, your complaints cannot be substantiated. That's why it's only natural to ask about motive. With no evidence to back up your position why do you argue so vociferously?

Do you have complete knowledge of the CNWMR methodology? If not then your praise for it's report is as baseless as my complaints.

You've fallen into a trap of your own making, by trying simplistically to reflect my comments on your invalid approach back on me; you haven't read my posts carefully enough.

At 2139 hrs yesterday I said:

I'm going to focus on the common criticisms aimed at the Report to indicate some of the equally common fallacies within these.

As you can see, I said some time ago that - precisely because the full methodology hasn't been revealed - I tend to concentrate on the attackers and the baseless position they hold - from your posts, that includes you it seems. If you can be bothered to read back you'll see I'm questioning the attacks on CNMWR from the start, asking people why they dismiss it and very little beyond that, why not quote me directly if you think othwerwise, my posts are still here. In general the real reason, whether or not it's acknowledged, that people go along with the detractors is that nine times out of ten they read articles with no superior provenance to the original Report, often less, and/or trot over to blogs, and believe what they read because it fits their preconceived mindset and propagandised state. Or they bought a hybrid as a religious act but now feel silly holding their plonker in front of the Report.

XitUp said:

I have evidence to back up my position, the other studies I've mentioned.

They aren't other 'studies', which is a grandiose label to attach to smears, incomplete half-stories and straight name-calling, plus the vested interest hatchet jobs, of which there are always plenty around when anybody puts their head over the green altar parapet. You also seem to confuse opinion with evidence as there's no complete evidence set available regarding the CNMWR methodology. If you have time on your hands as I sometimes do and use it to look at the data and conclusions in the CNMWR Report there is sufficient reason to set aside many of the natural scepticisms that should accompany any new Report. Certainly the gleeful knee-jerk rebuttals (failed) from the usual suspects makes further enquiry essential.

[turbobloke]

Meanwhile, back with electric cars, wasn't it announced in January this year that sales of electric cars were down by 58%, a statistic that doubtless resulted in the demise of the NICE Car Company as per Fifth Gear's article? With Tiny Bliar's mate running a windymill company you have to wonder who's left in the market for ec's and who they know:

http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?descriptio...

[otolith]

sleep envy said:

poorly maintained, expensive and a service that shuts at 12.30am on the w/e in a major city is appauling

It may well be appalling for a major city, but for much of the country there is no public transport at all at those times (unless you count taxis) - most places don't have the population density needed to make it work. The other problem of London based policy makers is that when they do realise that not everywhere has the same quality of public transport they fail to realise that it's not appropriate for everywhere to aspire to it.

[XitUp]

s2art said:

By every test there has been. All show approx high forties MPG.

And did they test all other cars? If not then you can't really complain about it not meeting it's official mpg figures when you don't check to see if it's competitors do.

s2art said:

Where do you get this information regarding emissions? The Audi has the more advanced engine and catalyst. It will be better than the Pious.

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/

[XitUp]

turbobloke said:

blah blah blah all other reports or not real studies if they don't say what I think, even though the one I'm championing doesn't show it's methodology blah blah blah.

OK.

[Prof Beard]

A bloke asked a good question in a letter to the Grauniad today:

How long before the lithium runs out?


Anyone know?

[900T-R]

I'm sure I've heard someone in an electric cars congress say that there's just about enough lithium for the batteries of 16 million cars.

Oh, and 80% of it belongs to Bolivia.

Edited by 900T-R on Friday 17th April 11:51