MPs say car ownership not compatible with decarbonisation
Discussion
The way I see this going is:
Government force us in to EVs because they are "good" for the evironment
Manufacturers will (and already are) seeking to increase battery capacity significantly - more demand on charging networks and electricity generation. Instead of 7/8Kw you'll need 20Kw to charge the thing in a reasonable time. Aside from massive onfrastructure costs to have enough charging capacity the grid will need mroe money too. Guess who's paying ?
EVs will be made to a budget and over say, 3-5 years, batteries will degrade to the point of being near useless. This suits manufacturers who get to sell you a nice shiny new car, probably on lease/PCP etc. The great unwashed are happy as they can now change their car as often as their iphone.
6-8 year old cars will be worthless with dead batteries and will be scrapped. Impact? For one thing it will drive construction cost down to make the cars affordable, which means inevitable scrimping on components, like batteries.
The effects of construction and deconstruction of vehicles then becomes a major issue.
Our lovely politicians will tell us we're all very naughty for having a car and ultimately we'll all be forced out of them, except them of course.
You've only got to look at the diesel debacle to see how it goes "ooh, stop driving nasty petrol cars, diesel is much better" errm what about NOX ? "oh we didn't measure that, here's some tax breaks for a nice new diesel" then some years later "err, these diesels aren't too good are they?".
In all honesty if you like driving and/or cars the best days are gone. Enjoy it while you can.
For those who are not interested in driving nor cars, none of this really matters.
Crafty_ said:
Our lovely politicians will tell us we're all very naughty for having a car and ultimately we'll all be forced out of them, except them of course.
and they'll have nearly empty roads but Zil lanes will still be attractive so they can fill in their expenses claims in the back of the limo away from the gaze of lesser mortals e.g. in double decker cattle truck transport.Ideological anti-car / anti-private transport zealotry as seen in this thread recently overlooks (accidentally overlooks, it's not wilful, of course, no sirree) the fact that nothing to do with cars per se or car use per se is intrinsically unpleasant or inconvenient.
The same cannot be said for the supposed alternative we're being increasingly forced onto.
turbobloke said:
Ideological anti-car / anti-private transport zealotry as seen in this thread recently overlooks (accidentally overlooks, it's not wilful, of course, no sirree) the fact that nothing to do with cars per se or car use per se is intrinsically unpleasant or inconvenient.
No, but there is unpleasantness as a consequence of the combustion engine in urban areas. More than unpleasantness, but proven negative health effects. Sitting in traffic, ques, accidents etc are also inconvenient, and so ironically the more convenient car usage is, the less convenient it becomes for the people using it at any given time. Crafty_ said:
The way I see this going is:
Government force us in to EVs because they are "good" for the evironment
Manufacturers will (and already are) seeking to increase battery capacity significantly - more demand on charging networks and electricity generation. Instead of 7/8Kw you'll need 20Kw to charge the thing in a reasonable time. Aside from massive onfrastructure costs to have enough charging capacity the grid will need mroe money too. Guess who's paying ?
EVs will be made to a budget and over say, 3-5 years, batteries will degrade to the point of being near useless. This suits manufacturers who get to sell you a nice shiny new car, probably on lease/PCP etc. The great unwashed are happy as they can now change their car as often as their iphone.
6-8 year old cars will be worthless with dead batteries and will be scrapped. Impact? For one thing it will drive construction cost down to make the cars affordable, which means inevitable scrimping on components, like batteries.
The effects of construction and deconstruction of vehicles then becomes a major issue.
Our lovely politicians will tell us we're all very naughty for having a car and ultimately we'll all be forced out of them, except them of course.
You've only got to look at the diesel debacle to see how it goes "ooh, stop driving nasty petrol cars, diesel is much better" errm what about NOX ? "oh we didn't measure that, here's some tax breaks for a nice new diesel" then some years later "err, these diesels aren't too good are they?".
In all honesty if you like driving and/or cars the best days are gone. Enjoy it while you can.
For those who are not interested in driving nor cars, none of this really matters.
False facts again...Government force us in to EVs because they are "good" for the evironment
Manufacturers will (and already are) seeking to increase battery capacity significantly - more demand on charging networks and electricity generation. Instead of 7/8Kw you'll need 20Kw to charge the thing in a reasonable time. Aside from massive onfrastructure costs to have enough charging capacity the grid will need mroe money too. Guess who's paying ?
EVs will be made to a budget and over say, 3-5 years, batteries will degrade to the point of being near useless. This suits manufacturers who get to sell you a nice shiny new car, probably on lease/PCP etc. The great unwashed are happy as they can now change their car as often as their iphone.
6-8 year old cars will be worthless with dead batteries and will be scrapped. Impact? For one thing it will drive construction cost down to make the cars affordable, which means inevitable scrimping on components, like batteries.
The effects of construction and deconstruction of vehicles then becomes a major issue.
Our lovely politicians will tell us we're all very naughty for having a car and ultimately we'll all be forced out of them, except them of course.
You've only got to look at the diesel debacle to see how it goes "ooh, stop driving nasty petrol cars, diesel is much better" errm what about NOX ? "oh we didn't measure that, here's some tax breaks for a nice new diesel" then some years later "err, these diesels aren't too good are they?".
In all honesty if you like driving and/or cars the best days are gone. Enjoy it while you can.
For those who are not interested in driving nor cars, none of this really matters.
The amount people need to charge isn't driven by the size of battery, but the daily need. It doesn't matter how long it takes to charge a 300kWh battery at home if you're only driving 30 miles a day (beyond UK average). Even 3kW (16A) is perfectly adequate for most people's overnight needs.
Only an exceptional few people will need 3 phase at home. Infact I'm willing to bet most people will just use a rapid and top up overnight if they need 100% the next morning.
Batteries are under warranty until at least 8 years and apart from first-gen Leaf, nearly every car is seeing useful life well beyond that (without significant reduction in range). Batteries that outlive their chassis (as is currently expected) will go on to static uses as UPS or storage applications.
ICE cars will live on. Biofuels, ethanol and LPG are all options to improve their environmental footprint (potentially) and come with performance improvements too. And EV will get more fun too, with DIY projects already showing good promise and many manufacturers looking to bring fun to the EV market.
turbobloke said:
That makes sense 
well said.
Collective cattle truck transport (which you covered so well above) outside London was described in the Audit Commission review/report "All Aboard" as a costly, disjointed and unreliable shambles...it works reasonably well in London but elsewhere is 'good' only for taking a limited number of people from one of a fixed and limited number of locations to another similar fixed location at a limited series of fixed times via afixed route (when there isn't a strike). When it 'works' it can still be very inconvenient and a deeply unpleasant experience.
It's an abysmal alternative to the car in most places, currently benefiting from the brute force of transport fascism (diktats and subsidies, naturally).
It could be as good as London in other big cities, if we threw the same amount of money at it. Outside of those areas it will always be either s well said.Collective cattle truck transport (which you covered so well above) outside London was described in the Audit Commission review/report "All Aboard" as a costly, disjointed and unreliable shambles...it works reasonably well in London but elsewhere is 'good' only for taking a limited number of people from one of a fixed and limited number of locations to another similar fixed location at a limited series of fixed times via afixed route (when there isn't a strike). When it 'works' it can still be very inconvenient and a deeply unpleasant experience.
It's an abysmal alternative to the car in most places, currently benefiting from the brute force of transport fascism (diktats and subsidies, naturally).
t or economically and environmentally inefficient because there simply aren’t enough people making the same journeys at the same times to run services frequently enough with enough occupancy. otolith said:
turbobloke said:
That makes sense well said.
Collective cattle truck transport (which you covered so well above) outside London was described in the Audit Commission review/report "All Aboard" as a costly, disjointed and unreliable shambles...it works reasonably well in London but elsewhere is 'good' only for taking a limited number of people from one of a fixed and limited number of locations to another similar fixed location at a limited series of fixed times via afixed route (when there isn't a strike). When it 'works' it can still be very inconvenient and a deeply unpleasant experience.
It's an abysmal alternative to the car in most places, currently benefiting from the brute force of transport fascism (diktats and subsidies, naturally).
It could be as good as London in other big cities, if we threw the same amount of money at it. Outside of those areas it will always be either s well said.Collective cattle truck transport (which you covered so well above) outside London was described in the Audit Commission review/report "All Aboard" as a costly, disjointed and unreliable shambles...it works reasonably well in London but elsewhere is 'good' only for taking a limited number of people from one of a fixed and limited number of locations to another similar fixed location at a limited series of fixed times via afixed route (when there isn't a strike). When it 'works' it can still be very inconvenient and a deeply unpleasant experience.
It's an abysmal alternative to the car in most places, currently benefiting from the brute force of transport fascism (diktats and subsidies, naturally).
t or economically and environmentally inefficient because there simply aren’t enough people making the same journeys at the same times to run services frequently enough with enough occupancy. Road pricing was proposed for Manchester a few years back aa a means of funding improved collective tranasport in a big city location already better served than other cities, it was comprehensively voted down.
turbobloke said:
Possibly. Are people going to be asked to pay for "the same as London in other big cities", asked if they want the changes and given real choice, or do you surmise it would/will be forced on them as something they don't want?
Road pricing was proposed for Manchester a few years back aa a means of funding improved collective tranasport in a big city location already better served than other cities, it was comprehensively voted down.
London per capita transport spend is so disproportionate that implementing the same quality of service in other metropolitan areas would require a magic money tree farm. So I doubt we’ll ever know. Road pricing was proposed for Manchester a few years back aa a means of funding improved collective tranasport in a big city location already better served than other cities, it was comprehensively voted down.
turbojoke said:
Ideological anti-car / anti-private transport zealotry as seen in this thread recently overlooks (accidentally overlooks, it's not wilful, of course, no sirree) the fact that nothing to do with cars per se or car use per se is intrinsically unpleasant or inconvenient.
There's nothing unpleasant about fumes, dust, noise or urban clutter. There's nothing unpleasant about traffic jams, other drivers or poor driving conditions. There's nothing unpleasant about monotonous long distance drives, with poor quality service stations and extortionate service station fuel prices.I mean, do you even drive?
Evanivitch said:
There's nothing unpleasant about fumes, dust, noise or urban clutter. There's nothing unpleasant about traffic jams, other drivers or poor driving conditions. There's nothing unpleasant about monotonous long distance drives, with poor quality service stations and extortionate service station fuel prices.
I mean, do you even drive?
Beats the hell out of walkingI mean, do you even drive?
Evanivitch said:
They're all using the full extent of the battery everyday? That would be quite unlikely, even in a 40kWh car, and Zoe, Corsa and 208 are now coming with 50kWh batteries (125-200 miles range).
The Corsa/208 twins will rapid at 100kW, so you'd need to find 20 mins to take them to 80% charge state every day, if you indeed needed a significant range every day.
fair point, one daughter only travels about 5 miles to work, the other around 18 miles (10 and 36 mile round trips respectively) plus typical running about seeing friends, eating out and shopping. electric definitely a viable option for my wife,we will probably have a look at the various options for her next car.The Corsa/208 twins will rapid at 100kW, so you'd need to find 20 mins to take them to 80% charge state every day, if you indeed needed a significant range every day.
i will be stuck in a diesel for the foreseeable , even a petrol would be too much of a compromise when it comes to fuel capacity. i do a lot of miles late evening/early morning so tend to have the opportunity to enjoy getting to my destination in a timely fashion.
typical average mpg claimed by various manufacturers of some of the diesel cars i have had would be at minimum 20 mpg more than what i ever achieve.
Condi said:
No, but there is unpleasantness as a consequence of the combustion engine in urban areas. More than unpleasantness, but proven negative health effects. Sitting in traffic, ques, accidents etc are also inconvenient, and so ironically the more convenient car usage is, the less convenient it becomes for the people using it at any given time.
i'm sorry but i just don't buy that. air quality everywhere in the uk is leagues ahead of where it was back in the day. sure some people with various illnesses may have problems, but i don't see us concreting over the countryside because some people suffer from hay fever.despite all the x amount of deaths due to "pollution" claims i have read and heard,has there ever been one death that can definitely be attributed to pollution in the uk in the last twenty years ?
Evanivitch said:
There's nothing unpleasant about fumes, dust, noise or urban clutter. There's nothing unpleasant about traffic jams, other drivers or poor driving conditions. There's nothing unpleasant about monotonous long distance drives, with poor quality service stations and extortionate service station fuel prices.
I mean, do you even drive?
i think you must spend too much time on motorways or in the south east. come to scotland, the weather is crap but the roads more than make up for it.I mean, do you even drive?
wc98 said:
fblm said:
Condi said:
...
Lets face it, 99% of time driving is tedious, boring and an inconvenience.
...
That's total bo11ocks. What do you drive?Lets face it, 99% of time driving is tedious, boring and an inconvenience.
...
Evanivitch said:
There's nothing unpleasant about fumes, dust, noise or urban clutter. There's nothing unpleasant about traffic jams, other drivers or poor driving conditions. There's nothing unpleasant about monotonous long distance drives, with poor quality service stations and extortionate service station fuel prices.
I mean, do you even drive?
The only thing EV's change about any of that is they move the exhaust fumes somewhere else. Regarding the price of fuel, most of it is of course tax which government will come after EV's for once they become prevalent.I mean, do you even drive?
(Urban clutter is one of my pet hates; EV infrastructure and emission zones seem to be spawning even more of it. Theres actually no need for much of it at all. If one needs signs, barriers, railings, lights, cameras, bollards etc... to effectively use something as simple as a road or pavement then it's poorly designed imo)
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 1st September 15:27
wc98 said:
i think you must spend too much time on motorways or in the south east. come to scotland, the weather is crap but the roads more than make up for it.
I do a lot of motorway, but I also have some of the best driving roads in South Wales on my doorstep. I enjoy them in my '95 MX5.fblm said:
Evanivitch said:
There's nothing unpleasant about fumes, dust, noise or urban clutter. There's nothing unpleasant about traffic jams, other drivers or poor driving conditions. There's nothing unpleasant about monotonous long distance drives, with poor quality service stations and extortionate service station fuel prices.
I mean, do you even drive?
The only thing EV's change about any of that is they move the exhaust fumes somewhere else. Regarding the price of fuel, most of it is of course tax which government will come after EV's for once they become prevalent.I mean, do you even drive?
(Urban clutter is one of my pet hates; EV infrastructure and emission zones seem to be spawning even more of it. Theres actually no need for much of it at all. If one needs signs, barriers, railings, lights, cameras, bollards etc... to effectively use something as simple as a road or pavement then it's poorly designed imo)
Edited by fblm on Sunday 1st September 15:27
The UK grid is increasingly clean, and many others are too. The energy is also extracted more efficiently when taken from a power station and used in an EV.
I'd love to see the government tracking electrons and telling me which ones I used in my car. Good luck with that.
And EV chargers wouldn't need so many signs if iCE drivers didn't keep blocking the chargers...
wc98 said:
i'm sorry but i just don't buy that. air quality everywhere in the uk is leagues ahead of where it was back in the day. sure some people with various illnesses may have problems, but i don't see us concreting over the countryside because some people suffer from hay fever.
despite all the x amount of deaths due to "pollution" claims i have read and heard,has there ever been one death that can definitely be attributed to pollution in the uk in the last twenty years ?
Listen to yourself. If air quality is better, it's sure as hell not because people like you stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la can't hear you it's all perfect in my world". It's because the government acknowledge that there is a problem and legislate to make things better. Do you think they passed the Clean Air Act for fun?despite all the x amount of deaths due to "pollution" claims i have read and heard,has there ever been one death that can definitely be attributed to pollution in the uk in the last twenty years ?
BTW: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=uk+pollution+deaths
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff