How much longer will diesel be a viable option

[kambites]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Me, I don't want to breath in any of them

Me neither but if we're going to release these chemicals into the atmosphere anyway (which, for the moment at least, we are) I'd prefer it to be as far from my (and anyone else's) lungs as possible and in that respect EVs are an improvement over ICE cars.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Diesel is good for "transport".

You need petrol for "driving".

[The only reasons diesels win at Le Mans is the regulations are slanted heavily in their favour. Not least because Audi have poured so much money into the event. Strange isn't it that VAG should be so enthusiastic about promoting their diesel cars....]

[xRIEx]

Ozzie Osmond said:

The only reasons diesels win at Le Mans is the regulations are slanted heavily in their favour. Not least because Audi have poured so much money into the event. Strange isn't it that VAG should be so enthusiastic about promoting their diesel cars....

Except this year, where VAG petrol cars took a one-two.

[toon10]

To answer the op, Diesel has never been a viable option

[JonoG81]

toon10 said:

To answer the op, Diesel has never been a viable option

Maybe not in your world

[Pan Pan Pan]

kambites said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Me, I don't want to breath in any of them

Me neither but if we're going to release these chemicals into the atmosphere anyway (which, for the moment at least, we are) I'd prefer it to be as far from my (and anyone else's) lungs as possible and in that respect EVs are an improvement over ICE cars.

Pollution is pollution, makes no difference where it is produced, it spreads around the country and the globe wherever it will.
Granted cities are foul polluted sh*tholes, but that is more to do with cramming millions of people into a dirty and cramped area, than one aspect (how people choose to move around) inside them.
London was a foul diseased sh*thole long before the ICE was even invented, and arguably is cleaner and healthier, than it was then, thanks to the ICE.

[kambites]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Pollution is pollution, makes no difference where it is produced, it spreads around the country and the globe wherever it will.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one because I absolutely 100% know that there are forms of pollution for which this is not true. There are forms of pollution which cannot spread far because they break down into other, non-harmful chemicals shortly after release into the atmosphere.

IMO the "pollution is pollution" attitude is one of the biggest problems with the way the international community is approaching these things. There are many thousands of different pollutants which behave completely differently from each other. Pollution is very much not just "pollution". In fact some things which are terrible in some situations are desirable in other parts of the atmosphere. Each individual pollutant needs to be understood and dealt with appropriately.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 29th September 10:51

[300bhp/ton]

stargazer30 said:

IMO the sooner the better. But knowing our Government, we may need to suffer (and I mean that quite literally) a good while longer.

[Pan Pan Pan]

kambites said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Pollution is pollution, makes no difference where it is produced, it spreads around the country and the globe wherever it will.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one because I absolutely 100% know that there are forms of pollution for which this is not true. There are forms of pollution which cannot spread far because they break down into other, non-harmful chemicals shortly after release into the atmosphere.

IMO the "pollution is pollution" attitude is one of the biggest problems with the way the international community is approaching these things. There are many thousands of different pollutants which behave completely differently from each other. Pollution is very much not just "pollution". In fact some things which are terrible in some situations are desirable in other parts of the atmosphere. Each individual pollutant needs to be understood and dealt with appropriately.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 29th September 10:51

We are talking in this case about inhaled air borne pollutants, which are spread by....Air. Worrying about which is worse is the same as worrying about whether one will be killed by an arrow, a bullet, poison, or a bomb, the end result is exactly the same.

[kambites]

Pan Pan Pan said:

We are talking in this case about inhaled air borne pollutants, which are spread by....Air. Worrying about which is worse is the same as worrying about whether one will be killed by an arrow, a bullet, poison, or a bomb, the end result is exactly the same.

As I said if you believe the release point of pollution can never matter, we'll have to agree to differ.

[bodhi]

The other big problem with EV's is the batteries they run on - and more specifically, the Lithium component of them. Not only is Lithium mining a fairly nasty process, but Lithium itself is also a finite resource - they reckon there is about 600 years worth at the moment, but if we all shift to EV's tomorrow, this would reduce to 40 years supply - so it's even more limited than oil. Perhaps fuel cells or rumoured super capacitors may solve this issue (or ideally, Mr Fusion style generators, but I think we're quite some way away from those), but at the moment, battery powered cars are a bit of a dead end. OK they are alright for pottering, but as soon as you need flexibility to cover large distances, or haul large loads around, they fall down pretty badly. Even Tesla's Supercharger solution isn't really an option - as impressive as 30 mins charge for 250 miles is, in the real world it's competing against 5 minutes for 300 miles + in a petrol, 450 miles + in a diesel.

If we want to solve the world's energy problems we really need to start investing properly in Fusion, but strangely there doesn't seem to be an appetite for this - quite baffling imo.

Oh, and you are having a laugh if you think the Tesla 3 will get 400-500 miles on a charge. In order to reduce the price they are going to have to reduce the number of batteries in it, and given the Tesla isn't actually that efficient for an electric car - nowhere near a Leaf or an i3, I suspect they are going to struggle to get more than 150 out of one.

[kambites]

Lithium being a finite resource doesn't matter as long as there's enough; it's not going to go anywhere so unlike oil it's not going to get "used up". I seem to remember reading somewhere that it would be easier and less environmentally damaging to extract enough Lithium to run every car in the world as an EV than enough platinum to fit a catalytic convertor to every car.

It is of course try that EVs aren't suitable for those who require long distance travel, but they make up a tiny proportion of drivers both in the UK and globally.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 29th September 11:03

[andy_s]

AdBlue.

[xRIEx]

Pan Pan Pan said:

kambites said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Pollution is pollution, makes no difference where it is produced, it spreads around the country and the globe wherever it will.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one because I absolutely 100% know that there are forms of pollution for which this is not true. There are forms of pollution which cannot spread far because they break down into other, non-harmful chemicals shortly after release into the atmosphere.

IMO the "pollution is pollution" attitude is one of the biggest problems with the way the international community is approaching these things. There are many thousands of different pollutants which behave completely differently from each other. Pollution is very much not just "pollution". In fact some things which are terrible in some situations are desirable in other parts of the atmosphere. Each individual pollutant needs to be understood and dealt with appropriately.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 29th September 10:51

We are talking in this case about inhaled air borne pollutants, which are spread by....Air. Worrying about which is worse is the same as worrying about whether one will be killed by an arrow, a bullet, poison, or a bomb, the end result is exactly the same.

You seem to be under the misconception that anything released into the air will travel to anywhere there is air. The nature of the chemical in question has a massive bearing on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PJTq2xQiQ0

In addition, it depends on how toxic the substance is and how it diffuses in air: 1ppm of one substance might be absolutely fine (and therefore a pollutant, say, 50 miles away is going to cause zero harm) and 1ppm of another substance may be fatal. What kambites is saying is correct.

[kambites]

Plus many such harmful chemicals degrade over time, so some will actually have 0ppm once you get a few miles from the release point.

[xRIEx]

bodhi said:

If we want to solve the world's energy problems we really need to start investing properly in Fusion, but strangely there doesn't seem to be an appetite for this - quite baffling imo.

I believe there is a fair amount of research going into this, however the headline is always the same: fusion is 20 years away; it's always 20 years away. I think I read recently that they have, for the first time, created a fusion reaction that generates more energy than that required to start it. Here: http://www.iflscience.com/physics/nuclear-fusion-r...

And the claim of "net gain" is a thin one, when you read the article. It is coming, but I reckon fusion power stations are a good 20 years away.

[Hangcheck]

bodhi said:

Even Tesla's Supercharger solution isn't really an option - as impressive as 30 mins charge for 250 miles is, in the real world it's competing against 5 minutes for 300 miles + in a petrol, 450 miles + in a diesel.

In the real world though that isn't a hardship. The longest I need to currently drive is from the South-West Midlands to Dartford to a client's site. It's, depending on which way round the M25, around 150 miles. It takes about 3hrs and when I get there I need a break and a coffee. Plenty of time to charge a Model S for another 250 miles to cover the drive home. As it is I'll do a day's work or stay in a hotel and come back the following day so enough time to fully charge it.

How many people would you suggest need to drive for 450+ miles in a diesel in one day (with the added requirement of only an allowed 5 minute break) on a regular basis?

bodhi said:

Oh, and you are having a laugh if you think the Tesla 3 will get 400-500 miles on a charge. In order to reduce the price they are going to have to reduce the number of batteries in it, and given the Tesla isn't actually that efficient for an electric car - nowhere near a Leaf or an i3, I suspect they are going to struggle to get more than 150 out of one.

Except they're investing in battery technology in such a way as to reduce the price of the batteries significantly so they wouldn't have to reduce the number.

I haven't got a Tesla, my brother-in-law has and replaced an S4 with it. I'm just impressed as he uses it to visit his various sites and customers which can be far afield and it's not really made any difference to his working day. The technology is workable for the majority of people just not affordable for most.

Edited by Hangcheck on Tuesday 29th September 11:17

Edited by Hangcheck on Tuesday 29th September 11:18

[300bhp/ton]

JonoG81 said:

toon10 said:

To answer the op, Diesel has never been a viable option

Maybe not in your world

Quite. As in I'd like see someone do this with only petrol power.

[J4CKO]

We did 360 miles at the weekend in our Fiesta Ecoboost (100 bhp remapped to 140), it did bang on 40 MPG despite being full of three people and one students worth or crap for University, it was not driven with economy in mind so I suspect better can be achieved fairly easily.

[bodhi]

kambites said:

Lithium being a finite resource doesn't matter as long as there's enough; it's not going to go anywhere so unlike oil it's not going to get "used up". I seem to remember reading somewhere that it would be easier and less environmentally damaging to extract enough Lithium to run every car in the world as an EV than enough platinum to fit a catalytic convertor to every car.

It is of course try that EVs aren't suitable for those who require long distance travel, but they make up a tiny proportion of drivers both in the UK and globally.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 29th September 11:03

But surely the limited supply of oil isn't a problem as long as there is enough? Seems a strange argument imo.