Large capacity engines. Very sought after or hot potato?
Discussion
cidered77 said:
fuel stations also supply and demand - i don't think there are huge margins in running one, so even if demand drops say 20% you'll likely start seeing them drop off, and it's going to be a lot more than that in 10 year's time when most mass transport is EV.
They won't go away, there will just be less - adding to the hassle factor, also hurting demand.
It's going to get more expensive, need a bit more determination, and become more of a hobby - but on the bright side, no way will classic car values continue to increase as they have done year on year for so long, at some point a whole lot of cool stuff is going to be much more affordable....
It’s slightly off topic but I don’t think classic cars do continue to increase in value for that long. In recent years fairly ordinary cars from the 70s and 80s have suddenly shot up in value, but that won’t last for ever - it just reflects the fact that a generation is suddenly able to afford things that they coveted as youngsters. At the same time, earlier classics lose some of their value, as the people who really appreciate them become too old to buy and maintain them. They won't go away, there will just be less - adding to the hassle factor, also hurting demand.
It's going to get more expensive, need a bit more determination, and become more of a hobby - but on the bright side, no way will classic car values continue to increase as they have done year on year for so long, at some point a whole lot of cool stuff is going to be much more affordable....
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds.
Things like XJSs and 3 litre Capris will probably continue to increase in price for the next decade or so but it won’t last for ever.
Foss62 said:
It’s slightly off topic but I don’t think classic cars do continue to increase in value for that long. In recent years fairly ordinary cars from the 70s and 80s have suddenly shot up in value, but that won’t last for ever - it just reflects the fact that a generation is suddenly able to afford things that they coveted as youngsters. At the same time, earlier classics lose some of their value, as the people who really appreciate them become too old to buy and maintain them.
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds.
Things like XJSs and 3 litre Capris will probably continue to increase in price for the next decade or so but it won’t last for ever.
Just curious. But can you suggest any 50s cars that are cheaper today than say 10 years ago?A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds.
Things like XJSs and 3 litre Capris will probably continue to increase in price for the next decade or so but it won’t last for ever.
I was looking at things like a V8 Pilot. And prices seem to be stronger than ever.
300bhp/ton said:
Foss62 said:
It’s slightly off topic but I don’t think classic cars do continue to increase in value for that long. In recent years fairly ordinary cars from the 70s and 80s have suddenly shot up in value, but that won’t last for ever - it just reflects the fact that a generation is suddenly able to afford things that they coveted as youngsters. At the same time, earlier classics lose some of their value, as the people who really appreciate them become too old to buy and maintain them.
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds.
Things like XJSs and 3 litre Capris will probably continue to increase in price for the next decade or so but it won’t last for ever.
Just curious. But can you suggest any 50s cars that are cheaper today than say 10 years ago?A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds.
Things like XJSs and 3 litre Capris will probably continue to increase in price for the next decade or so but it won’t last for ever.
I was looking at things like a V8 Pilot. And prices seem to be stronger than ever.
My Dad had a 1954 Austin A40 Somerset when I was born in 1959 that he sold in 1967 for £30 - it couldn't really go down.
why? there'll always be a good demand for them, and TBPH any car that is then going to become modern classic... even bog-standard sierra sapphires get so much attention, because all of a sudden they seemed to disappear. So now even the 1.8LX is £5,000 rather than £500 a few years ago!
Foss62 said:
It’s slightly off topic but I don’t think classic cars do continue to increase in value for that long.
....earlier classics lose some of their value, as the people who really appreciate them become too old to buy and maintain them.
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds
My common sense tells me you are right but I can't find any evidence to back this up - what cars from the 30-50's have you seen that have dropped in value ?....earlier classics lose some of their value, as the people who really appreciate them become too old to buy and maintain them.
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds
KTMsm said:
Foss62 said:
It’s slightly off topic but I don’t think classic cars do continue to increase in value for that long.
....earlier classics lose some of their value, as the people who really appreciate them become too old to buy and maintain them.
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds
My common sense tells me you are right but I can't find any evidence to back this up - what cars from the 30-50's have you seen that have dropped in value ?....earlier classics lose some of their value, as the people who really appreciate them become too old to buy and maintain them.
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds
Classic car shows as a kid growing up in the 80s - think how many Austin 7s, or Wolseley PipeandBeards, Vauxhall Worthers Originals, etc there were. Those cars just aren't as common anymore, and all common sense tells us that's entirely understandable - the men who grew up lusting after them aren't with us anymore.
Of course am talking generally, and there will be someone who says now they have fourteen Austin 7s, etc etc - just like the chap above whose kids are still into cars (was making a general point, of course not an absolute one); but - basic supply and demand tells us this is happening.
Personally I'd really like to get a good C63 coupe (last of the V8 models) and put it away for a high days and holidays car (no matter if it went up or down in value), but to do this I'd have to free up space, which is already occupied by cars I don't want to part with (at the moment), so unless something dramatic happens (like moving to a new house) I'll have to stick with what I have.
As others have said trends tend to move with generations, my (car) interests go from the 1960's to present day, there's lots more that interest me in the past than currently, I'm more than aware that at some point it's likely I'll be going to work in an EV, but I would like to think that there will be enough specialists and fuel (synthetic or not) around to allow me to run an ICE car (subject to the government letting it carry on) when I have the opportunity to, vehicles are part of living history and add to our cultures, you only have to go to a classic car show and see the variety of colours (compared with the white / grey / black boxes we all seem to drive now) to put a smile on your face, perhaps we are all looking to the past as 'simpler times' in our lives and that's why it's enjoyable ?
As others have said trends tend to move with generations, my (car) interests go from the 1960's to present day, there's lots more that interest me in the past than currently, I'm more than aware that at some point it's likely I'll be going to work in an EV, but I would like to think that there will be enough specialists and fuel (synthetic or not) around to allow me to run an ICE car (subject to the government letting it carry on) when I have the opportunity to, vehicles are part of living history and add to our cultures, you only have to go to a classic car show and see the variety of colours (compared with the white / grey / black boxes we all seem to drive now) to put a smile on your face, perhaps we are all looking to the past as 'simpler times' in our lives and that's why it's enjoyable ?
KTMsm said:
It isn't as simple as engine size
Personally I want a large engine, preferably V8, MANUAL box, RWD and LSD it also has to be relatively light and fun to drive
That combination has been rare - and expensive - for many years
Chimaera's can still be had from about 8k, 15k basically gets you a mint one. Personally I want a large engine, preferably V8, MANUAL box, RWD and LSD it also has to be relatively light and fun to drive
That combination has been rare - and expensive - for many years
As someone earlier said. TVR's just haven't appreciated like other enthuisiat marques which is making their value more conspicuous by the week.
Edit, Sagaris aside.
Edited by ChocolateFrog on Friday 27th May 10:46
I think that there is a real liklihood that plant based fuels will make ICE cars more environmentally friendly and a genuine alternative to electric. I wonder how much older cars will be able to use these fuels? May need upgraded fuel systems, but if the car has value then the upgrades will be worth it.
^^^^^^^^ This.
Electric cars are not environmentally friendly in any way or at any stage from build to use.
Sooner or later the car industry will decide to move on and sell something with better environmental credentials.
It's just a case of what, and/or if we can make a synthetic fuel without the harmful emissions anywhere along the line, we will be on to a winner.
I read with interest an advert that popped up on the banner on here from a company selling recycled veg oil as bio-diesel and claiming it had 95% lower harmful emissions than fuel oil-derived diesel.
There only seemed to be one problem right now, and that is that you need to be able to take a delivery that is a (proportion of a) tanker's worth at a time.
Not an issue for many a haulage yard or a farmer, but until they sell the stuff at petrol stations I cannot see it going in my X Trail.
Oh, and the minor issue that you smell like a mobile chip shop, though perhaps they may have dealt with that amusing side-effect of running on recycled chip oil.
Electric cars are not environmentally friendly in any way or at any stage from build to use.
Sooner or later the car industry will decide to move on and sell something with better environmental credentials.
It's just a case of what, and/or if we can make a synthetic fuel without the harmful emissions anywhere along the line, we will be on to a winner.
I read with interest an advert that popped up on the banner on here from a company selling recycled veg oil as bio-diesel and claiming it had 95% lower harmful emissions than fuel oil-derived diesel.
There only seemed to be one problem right now, and that is that you need to be able to take a delivery that is a (proportion of a) tanker's worth at a time.
Not an issue for many a haulage yard or a farmer, but until they sell the stuff at petrol stations I cannot see it going in my X Trail.
Oh, and the minor issue that you smell like a mobile chip shop, though perhaps they may have dealt with that amusing side-effect of running on recycled chip oil.
The only way to not get stung on tax is to run it as a summer weekender in the long run instead of paying extortionate amounts of VED. My garage queen only leaves the four walls when it's dry and above 12c!
Therefore, VED is a fraction of the normally 630.00 per year just to enjoy our Indian British summers! Always pay monthly by DD and cancel when you want, then reinstate when you fancy a blast.
A faff I know, but it will keep more of your hard earned cash in your pocket!
Therefore, VED is a fraction of the normally 630.00 per year just to enjoy our Indian British summers! Always pay monthly by DD and cancel when you want, then reinstate when you fancy a blast.
A faff I know, but it will keep more of your hard earned cash in your pocket!
QBee said:
^^^^^^^^ This.
Electric cars are not environmentally friendly in any way or at any stage from build to use.
Sooner or later the car industry will decide to move on and sell something with better environmental credentials.
It's just a case of what, and/or if we can make a synthetic fuel without the harmful emissions anywhere along the line, we will be on to a winner.
I read with interest an advert that popped up on the banner on here from a company selling recycled veg oil as bio-diesel and claiming it had 95% lower harmful emissions than fuel oil-derived diesel.
There only seemed to be one problem right now, and that is that you need to be able to take a delivery that is a (proportion of a) tanker's worth at a time.
Not an issue for many a haulage yard or a farmer, but until they sell the stuff at petrol stations I cannot see it going in my X Trail.
Oh, and the minor issue that you smell like a mobile chip shop, though perhaps they may have dealt with that amusing side-effect of running on recycled chip oil.
Anyone who thinks you can operate a country's entire fleet of passenger cars on any form of renewable energy where most of the input energy is lost to waste heat is in desperate need of a calculator and a maths text book.Electric cars are not environmentally friendly in any way or at any stage from build to use.
Sooner or later the car industry will decide to move on and sell something with better environmental credentials.
It's just a case of what, and/or if we can make a synthetic fuel without the harmful emissions anywhere along the line, we will be on to a winner.
I read with interest an advert that popped up on the banner on here from a company selling recycled veg oil as bio-diesel and claiming it had 95% lower harmful emissions than fuel oil-derived diesel.
There only seemed to be one problem right now, and that is that you need to be able to take a delivery that is a (proportion of a) tanker's worth at a time.
Not an issue for many a haulage yard or a farmer, but until they sell the stuff at petrol stations I cannot see it going in my X Trail.
Oh, and the minor issue that you smell like a mobile chip shop, though perhaps they may have dealt with that amusing side-effect of running on recycled chip oil.
Therefore any form of combustible fuel produced from renewable energy, be it hydrogen or synthetic fuel is an absolute non-starter, there is simply too much input energy required into the system. The UK passenger car market requires a form of renewable energy that can propel over 30 million cars over a combined distance of 250 billion miles each year. Fossil fuels currently achieve that by consuming something like 400-500 TWh of energy released from crude, annually.
Electric cars can cover the same task with less than 100 TWh of input electrical energy each year, and crucially, a far lower amount of new infrastructure compared to any other renewable alternative.
Try doing it with a combustible fuel produced from renewable electricity and you still need many hundreds of TWhs, more than today's entire grid supply. This is because the end-to-end efficiency is so poor when you try to produce, store, distribute and combust a fuel.
So where do you get all the extra input energy?
From tens of thousands of extra wind turbines, i.e massive upfront carbon footprint to manufacture and install.
Where do you get your combustible fuel?
From a massive infrastructure of conversion/compression/storage that doesn't yet exist, i.e even more massive amounts of carbon to manufacture and install.
Either way it is several time greater than what is required for an EV infrastructure.
For the pursuit of net zero (or anything somewhat resembling it) the end-to-end system efficiency is king, nothing else matters, which makes EVs the only game in town I'm afraid.
As for comparing EVs with ICEs, the carbon footprint comparison done over a 2 or 3 year period is pointless and entirely misleading. There won't be a meaningful reduction in 'total' carbon until at least about half the cars on the road are EVs and the electricity to charge these is predominately produced from renewable sources.
The timescale for this is not years, but a decade or three. The decision makers in Government and at the manufacturers know this and can see past the here and now 'payback' clap-trap that gets bandied about.
The production and use of ICEs for the current UK scenario generates around 70-75 million tons of carbon each year. This is based on 2 million new cars being produced each year and 30+ million cars covering an average mileage of 8000. At least 80% of this is the in-use footprint from burning fossil fuels. There's your elephant in the room right there.
Compare that with a 2050 'ideal' scenario where all the cars on the road are EVs and all are charged from renewable sources, along with 2 million new EVs being produced each year and now the footprint would be 15 million tons or less. A fivefold reduction....
Sure there are some extra wind-turbines to throw in the mix and all the millions of charging points, but it's by far the least worse option in terms of infrastructure to get to that kind of recurring footprint.
This carbon footprint thing is all about the long game, and is about a collective approach, not about specific individuals. It's about removing the in-use footprint of the first, second, third AND fourth owner of the car.
It's about removing the option for the first user to make the 'wrong' choice for the collective effort by only considering their individual footprint, rather than what will happen when that car is used for another 10 years or more by subsequent owners.
Hence the legislation.
KTMsm said:
Foss62 said:
It’s slightly off topic but I don’t think classic cars do continue to increase in value for that long.
....earlier classics lose some of their value, as the people who really appreciate them become too old to buy and maintain them.
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds
My common sense tells me you are right but I can't find any evidence to back this up - what cars from the 30-50's have you seen that have dropped in value ?....earlier classics lose some of their value, as the people who really appreciate them become too old to buy and maintain them.
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds
GT9 said:
Anyone who thinks you can operate a country's entire fleet of passenger cars on any form of renewable energy where most of the input energy is lost to waste heat is in desperate need of a calculator and a maths text book.
Therefore any form of combustible fuel produced from renewable energy, be it hydrogen or synthetic fuel is an absolute non-starter, there is simply too much input energy required into the system. The UK passenger car market requires a form of renewable energy that can propel over 30 million cars over a combined distance of 250 billion miles each year. Fossil fuels currently achieve that by consuming something like 400-500 TWh of energy released from crude, annually.
Electric cars can cover the same task with less than 100 TWh of input electrical energy each year, and crucially, a far lower amount of new infrastructure compared to any other renewable alternative.
Try doing it with a combustible fuel produced from renewable electricity and you still need many hundreds of TWhs, more than today's entire grid supply. This is because the end-to-end efficiency is so poor when you try to produce, store, distribute and combust a fuel.
So where do you get all the extra input energy?
From tens of thousands of extra wind turbines, i.e massive upfront carbon footprint to manufacture and install.
Where do you get your combustible fuel?
From a massive infrastructure of conversion/compression/storage that doesn't yet exist, i.e even more massive amounts of carbon to manufacture and install.
Either way it is several time greater than what is required for an EV infrastructure.
For the pursuit of net zero (or anything somewhat resembling it) the end-to-end system efficiency is king, nothing else matters, which makes EVs the only game in town I'm afraid.
As for comparing EVs with ICEs, the carbon footprint comparison done over a 2 or 3 year period is pointless and entirely misleading. There won't be a meaningful reduction in 'total' carbon until at least about half the cars on the road are EVs and the electricity to charge these is predominately produced from renewable sources.
The timescale for this is not years, but a decade or three. The decision makers in Government and at the manufacturers know this and can see past the here and now 'payback' clap-trap that gets bandied about.
The production and use of ICEs for the current UK scenario generates around 70-75 million tons of carbon each year. This is based on 2 million new cars being produced each year and 30+ million cars covering an average mileage of 8000. At least 80% of this is the in-use footprint from burning fossil fuels. There's your elephant in the room right there.
Compare that with a 2050 'ideal' scenario where all the cars on the road are EVs and all are charged from renewable sources, along with 2 million new EVs being produced each year and now the footprint would be 15 million tons or less. A fivefold reduction....
Sure there are some extra wind-turbines to throw in the mix and all the millions of charging points, but it's by far the least worse option in terms of infrastructure to get to that kind of recurring footprint.
This carbon footprint thing is all about the long game, and is about a collective approach, not about specific individuals. It's about removing the in-use footprint of the first, second, third AND fourth owner of the car.
It's about removing the option for the first user to make the 'wrong' choice for the collective effort by only considering their individual footprint, rather than what will happen when that car is used for another 10 years or more by subsequent owners.
Hence the legislation.
Whilst that ^^ is all absolutely True, there's a bigger driving force towards our private passenger car fleet becoming EV's namely, a BEV passenger car is quite simply a "better" car for the vast majority of users. Faster, quieter, smoother, easier to drive, less costly to maintain, more interior space. Drive a BEV back to back with a comparible ICE version and very very few actual paying customers choose the ICE.Therefore any form of combustible fuel produced from renewable energy, be it hydrogen or synthetic fuel is an absolute non-starter, there is simply too much input energy required into the system. The UK passenger car market requires a form of renewable energy that can propel over 30 million cars over a combined distance of 250 billion miles each year. Fossil fuels currently achieve that by consuming something like 400-500 TWh of energy released from crude, annually.
Electric cars can cover the same task with less than 100 TWh of input electrical energy each year, and crucially, a far lower amount of new infrastructure compared to any other renewable alternative.
Try doing it with a combustible fuel produced from renewable electricity and you still need many hundreds of TWhs, more than today's entire grid supply. This is because the end-to-end efficiency is so poor when you try to produce, store, distribute and combust a fuel.
So where do you get all the extra input energy?
From tens of thousands of extra wind turbines, i.e massive upfront carbon footprint to manufacture and install.
Where do you get your combustible fuel?
From a massive infrastructure of conversion/compression/storage that doesn't yet exist, i.e even more massive amounts of carbon to manufacture and install.
Either way it is several time greater than what is required for an EV infrastructure.
For the pursuit of net zero (or anything somewhat resembling it) the end-to-end system efficiency is king, nothing else matters, which makes EVs the only game in town I'm afraid.
As for comparing EVs with ICEs, the carbon footprint comparison done over a 2 or 3 year period is pointless and entirely misleading. There won't be a meaningful reduction in 'total' carbon until at least about half the cars on the road are EVs and the electricity to charge these is predominately produced from renewable sources.
The timescale for this is not years, but a decade or three. The decision makers in Government and at the manufacturers know this and can see past the here and now 'payback' clap-trap that gets bandied about.
The production and use of ICEs for the current UK scenario generates around 70-75 million tons of carbon each year. This is based on 2 million new cars being produced each year and 30+ million cars covering an average mileage of 8000. At least 80% of this is the in-use footprint from burning fossil fuels. There's your elephant in the room right there.
Compare that with a 2050 'ideal' scenario where all the cars on the road are EVs and all are charged from renewable sources, along with 2 million new EVs being produced each year and now the footprint would be 15 million tons or less. A fivefold reduction....
Sure there are some extra wind-turbines to throw in the mix and all the millions of charging points, but it's by far the least worse option in terms of infrastructure to get to that kind of recurring footprint.
This carbon footprint thing is all about the long game, and is about a collective approach, not about specific individuals. It's about removing the in-use footprint of the first, second, third AND fourth owner of the car.
It's about removing the option for the first user to make the 'wrong' choice for the collective effort by only considering their individual footprint, rather than what will happen when that car is used for another 10 years or more by subsequent owners.
Hence the legislation.
The weird EV haters on here who increasingly seem stuck in some parallel world from 20 years ago are unfortunately irrelevant. People will, and in fact are, buying BEVs because they are a better car, and that's actually all that matters to those buyers!
Griffithy said:
Foss62 said:
A lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50s is now available for a few thousand pounds.
I am after a lot of cool stuff from the 30s, 40s and 50sPlease give my my Blower, SSK(L), SS100, SLR, Bugatti for a few thousand pounds.
Surprised you didn’t want a cheap D Type though.
Max_Torque said:
GT9 said:
Anyone who thinks you can operate a country's entire fleet of passenger cars on any form of renewable energy where most of the input energy is lost to waste heat is in desperate need of a calculator and a maths text book.
Therefore any form of combustible fuel produced from renewable energy, be it hydrogen or synthetic fuel is an absolute non-starter, there is simply too much input energy required into the system. The UK passenger car market requires a form of renewable energy that can propel over 30 million cars over a combined distance of 250 billion miles each year. Fossil fuels currently achieve that by consuming something like 400-500 TWh of energy released from crude, annually.
Electric cars can cover the same task with less than 100 TWh of input electrical energy each year, and crucially, a far lower amount of new infrastructure compared to any other renewable alternative.
Try doing it with a combustible fuel produced from renewable electricity and you still need many hundreds of TWhs, more than today's entire grid supply. This is because the end-to-end efficiency is so poor when you try to produce, store, distribute and combust a fuel.
So where do you get all the extra input energy?
From tens of thousands of extra wind turbines, i.e massive upfront carbon footprint to manufacture and install.
Where do you get your combustible fuel?
From a massive infrastructure of conversion/compression/storage that doesn't yet exist, i.e even more massive amounts of carbon to manufacture and install.
Either way it is several time greater than what is required for an EV infrastructure.
For the pursuit of net zero (or anything somewhat resembling it) the end-to-end system efficiency is king, nothing else matters, which makes EVs the only game in town I'm afraid.
As for comparing EVs with ICEs, the carbon footprint comparison done over a 2 or 3 year period is pointless and entirely misleading. There won't be a meaningful reduction in 'total' carbon until at least about half the cars on the road are EVs and the electricity to charge these is predominately produced from renewable sources.
The timescale for this is not years, but a decade or three. The decision makers in Government and at the manufacturers know this and can see past the here and now 'payback' clap-trap that gets bandied about.
The production and use of ICEs for the current UK scenario generates around 70-75 million tons of carbon each year. This is based on 2 million new cars being produced each year and 30+ million cars covering an average mileage of 8000. At least 80% of this is the in-use footprint from burning fossil fuels. There's your elephant in the room right there.
Compare that with a 2050 'ideal' scenario where all the cars on the road are EVs and all are charged from renewable sources, along with 2 million new EVs being produced each year and now the footprint would be 15 million tons or less. A fivefold reduction....
Sure there are some extra wind-turbines to throw in the mix and all the millions of charging points, but it's by far the least worse option in terms of infrastructure to get to that kind of recurring footprint.
This carbon footprint thing is all about the long game, and is about a collective approach, not about specific individuals. It's about removing the in-use footprint of the first, second, third AND fourth owner of the car.
It's about removing the option for the first user to make the 'wrong' choice for the collective effort by only considering their individual footprint, rather than what will happen when that car is used for another 10 years or more by subsequent owners.
Hence the legislation.
Whilst that ^^ is all absolutely True, there's a bigger driving force towards our private passenger car fleet becoming EV's namely, a BEV passenger car is quite simply a "better" car for the vast majority of users. Faster, quieter, smoother, easier to drive, less costly to maintain, more interior space. Drive a BEV back to back with a comparible ICE version and very very few actual paying customers choose the ICE.Therefore any form of combustible fuel produced from renewable energy, be it hydrogen or synthetic fuel is an absolute non-starter, there is simply too much input energy required into the system. The UK passenger car market requires a form of renewable energy that can propel over 30 million cars over a combined distance of 250 billion miles each year. Fossil fuels currently achieve that by consuming something like 400-500 TWh of energy released from crude, annually.
Electric cars can cover the same task with less than 100 TWh of input electrical energy each year, and crucially, a far lower amount of new infrastructure compared to any other renewable alternative.
Try doing it with a combustible fuel produced from renewable electricity and you still need many hundreds of TWhs, more than today's entire grid supply. This is because the end-to-end efficiency is so poor when you try to produce, store, distribute and combust a fuel.
So where do you get all the extra input energy?
From tens of thousands of extra wind turbines, i.e massive upfront carbon footprint to manufacture and install.
Where do you get your combustible fuel?
From a massive infrastructure of conversion/compression/storage that doesn't yet exist, i.e even more massive amounts of carbon to manufacture and install.
Either way it is several time greater than what is required for an EV infrastructure.
For the pursuit of net zero (or anything somewhat resembling it) the end-to-end system efficiency is king, nothing else matters, which makes EVs the only game in town I'm afraid.
As for comparing EVs with ICEs, the carbon footprint comparison done over a 2 or 3 year period is pointless and entirely misleading. There won't be a meaningful reduction in 'total' carbon until at least about half the cars on the road are EVs and the electricity to charge these is predominately produced from renewable sources.
The timescale for this is not years, but a decade or three. The decision makers in Government and at the manufacturers know this and can see past the here and now 'payback' clap-trap that gets bandied about.
The production and use of ICEs for the current UK scenario generates around 70-75 million tons of carbon each year. This is based on 2 million new cars being produced each year and 30+ million cars covering an average mileage of 8000. At least 80% of this is the in-use footprint from burning fossil fuels. There's your elephant in the room right there.
Compare that with a 2050 'ideal' scenario where all the cars on the road are EVs and all are charged from renewable sources, along with 2 million new EVs being produced each year and now the footprint would be 15 million tons or less. A fivefold reduction....
Sure there are some extra wind-turbines to throw in the mix and all the millions of charging points, but it's by far the least worse option in terms of infrastructure to get to that kind of recurring footprint.
This carbon footprint thing is all about the long game, and is about a collective approach, not about specific individuals. It's about removing the in-use footprint of the first, second, third AND fourth owner of the car.
It's about removing the option for the first user to make the 'wrong' choice for the collective effort by only considering their individual footprint, rather than what will happen when that car is used for another 10 years or more by subsequent owners.
Hence the legislation.
The weird EV haters on here who increasingly seem stuck in some parallel world from 20 years ago are unfortunately irrelevant. People will, and in fact are, buying BEVs because they are a better car, and that's actually all that matters to those buyers!
Not so sure about replacing the E Class, though, as I'll be driving that 4 up from London to Bordeaux in a couple of months. I suppose the closest thing would be a Tesla S on air suspension. It's not an estate, though, and I suspect there would be a lot of standing around at French charging points on the way there and back. Plus, again, I'm £20k short of an early high miler.
I don't really know what to replace it with, tbh. In the sort term I've decided I may as well hang on to it and have just upgraded the ICE. I don't NEED to be sitting behind a V8, much though I enjoy it. Maybe I could get something with a 4 pot petrol turbo (although that's going to sound a bit dull) or maybe a hybrid of some description. I think the best compromise for me would be some sort of V6 mild hybrid - a foot in both camps. Or worst of both worlds, depending on how you look at it.
Anyway, this lack of clarity is just encouraging me to sit on my hands for now and stay with the big motor until some obvious alternative presents itself.
At Xmas when prices in general start to drop (hopefully) as winter and fuel prices bite, I'm going to get either a Leon Cupra which is the safe choice, or a Lexus Rcf which is the emotional choice.
Not looking to make money, but I wonder how the market will treat them. Last of the 5.0 Lexus engines etc, but heavy and not the most agile of things. Low numbers though.
Not looking to make money, but I wonder how the market will treat them. Last of the 5.0 Lexus engines etc, but heavy and not the most agile of things. Low numbers though.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff