What they don't tell you about electric cars
Discussion
eldar said:
otolith said:
Why is the Daily Mail on a crusade to kill the electric car? Is it just aligning with the small minded prejudices of its readers, is it culture war bulls
t, or is it in someone's interests?
You answered your own question there. t, or is it in someone's interests? But also they're incentivised by big oil money, indirectly.
TheDeuce said:
eldar said:
otolith said:
Why is the Daily Mail on a crusade to kill the electric car? Is it just aligning with the small minded prejudices of its readers, is it culture war bullst, or is it in someone's interests?
You answered your own question there. t, or is it in someone's interests? But also they're incentivised by big oil money, indirectly.
TheDeuce said:
P.Griffin said:
Not sure it matters if there's proof or not..it's a Daily Mail headline, and yet another nail in the coffin along with horrendous depreciation, lack of charging points, questionable eco credentials, poor range, sky high insurance, huge cost for individuals...etc...someone will be along to add to the list.
There will be a future for EV but it's looking increasingly likely that it won't be the "solution" governments want it to be.
Keep dreaming and bunging 'facts I eard' in there to support your hopes There will be a future for EV but it's looking increasingly likely that it won't be the "solution" governments want it to be.
- Eco credentials, proven and understood. Theyre easily better overall than ICE
- Range = sufficient for most and rapidly increasing
- depreciation is a factor of early initial prices, it was predictable but no reason it should remain higher than ICE longer term
- Insurance issues only applies to certain cars and not all EV's, albeit mostly EV's as many are from brands that don't yet have a full service network established here.
- There's no lack of charging points other than for people on terraced streets/flats etc, that are not expected by the governments to be among the first generation of adopters, and also don't need to be.
This isn't an EV coffin you're banging nails into, it's your own willingness to see beyond 'today' when you're facing something new that you're trying to bury.
TheDeuce said:
- Eco credentials, proven and understood. Theyre easily better overall than ICE
- Range = sufficient for most and rapidly increasing
- depreciation is a factor of early initial prices, it was predictable but no reason it should remain higher than ICE longer term
- Insurance issues only applies to certain cars and not all EV's, albeit mostly EV's as many are from brands that don't yet have a full service network established here.
- There's no lack of charging points other than for people on terraced streets/flats etc, that are not expected by the governments to be among the first generation of adopters, and also don't need to be.
You state the above are irrefutable facts, perhaps because you want to believe them. But just because you state them, doesn't make them true. For example; - Range = sufficient for most and rapidly increasing
- depreciation is a factor of early initial prices, it was predictable but no reason it should remain higher than ICE longer term
- Insurance issues only applies to certain cars and not all EV's, albeit mostly EV's as many are from brands that don't yet have a full service network established here.
- There's no lack of charging points other than for people on terraced streets/flats etc, that are not expected by the governments to be among the first generation of adopters, and also don't need to be.
-Eco credentials, proven and understood. Theyre easily better overall than ICE...Highly debatable. Evidence points both ways so what is actually true?
-Range = sufficient for most and rapidly increasing. ...I can accept this one.
- depreciation is a factor of early initial prices, it was predictable but no reason it should remain higher than ICE longer term. Subjective and debatable, again, not based in fact..
- Insurance issues only applies to certain cars and not all EV's, albeit mostly EV's as many are from brands that don't yet have a full service network established here...Subjective and debatable, again, not based in fact..
- There's no lack of charging points other than for people on terraced streets/flats etc, that are not expected by the governments to be among the first generation of adopters, and also don't need to be...... Apart from the fact that most city dwellers live in terraced houses or flats, and I'm guessing that's a large proportion of the population, the anecdotal evidence is that there are not enough charging points.
I suspect you'll reply to this by debunking my arguments somehow, rather than accepting that the truth is up for debate.
Edited by P.Griffin on Friday 8th March 12:38
otolith said:
The only important eco credential is the feasibility of decarbonising personal road transport with the technology chosen. It's feasible with EV. It is not feasible with ICE.
How to mine the Lithium without a trace of carbon please? https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/is-lithium-minin...
P.Griffin said:
How to mine the Lithium without a trace of carbon please?
https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/is-lithium-minin...
You do it with renewable energy, and you make sure that the carbonate ions from the mined lithium carbonate remain locked up.https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/is-lithium-minin...
P.Griffin said:
otolith said:
The only important eco credential is the feasibility of decarbonising personal road transport with the technology chosen. It's feasible with EV. It is not feasible with ICE.
How to mine the Lithium without a trace of carbon please? https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/is-lithium-minin...
Nothing is CO2 free in terms of extraction and exploitation.
There have been numerous posts giving great detail and evidencing the point at which EVs become less (CO2) polluting than ICEs. It is a pity you have not followed these posts.
After the ICE fuel gets extracted as crude oil refined, distributed sold at the pump, burned in the engine it is lost and creates not just CO2 but other noxious fumes. This engine operates at about 35% efficiency or so.
The EV whilst being driven produces no Co2 or NOx and its rare earth metals can be recycled. The greater the level of renewables appear in our power generation the quicker the 'payback' time for the CO2 balance in EV s favour. The Physics/Chemistry/Science or whatever you want to call it is clear.
BTW Synthetic fuels will never be able to compete as it is not economic at anywhere near current prices and in anywise is still burnt in a highly inefficient engine. It will be for fringe usage only.
P.Griffin said:
TheDeuce said:
- Eco credentials, proven and understood. Theyre easily better overall than ICE
- Range = sufficient for most and rapidly increasing
- depreciation is a factor of early initial prices, it was predictable but no reason it should remain higher than ICE longer term
- Insurance issues only applies to certain cars and not all EV's, albeit mostly EV's as many are from brands that don't yet have a full service network established here.
- There's no lack of charging points other than for people on terraced streets/flats etc, that are not expected by the governments to be among the first generation of adopters, and also don't need to be.
You state the above are irrefutable facts, perhaps because you want to believe them. But just because you state them, doesn't make them true. For example; - Range = sufficient for most and rapidly increasing
- depreciation is a factor of early initial prices, it was predictable but no reason it should remain higher than ICE longer term
- Insurance issues only applies to certain cars and not all EV's, albeit mostly EV's as many are from brands that don't yet have a full service network established here.
- There's no lack of charging points other than for people on terraced streets/flats etc, that are not expected by the governments to be among the first generation of adopters, and also don't need to be.
-Eco credentials, proven and understood. Theyre easily better overall than ICE...Highly debatable. Evidence points both ways so what is actually true?
-Range = sufficient for most and rapidly increasing. ...I can accept this one.
- depreciation is a factor of early initial prices, it was predictable but no reason it should remain higher than ICE longer term. Subjective and debatable, again, not based in fact..
- Insurance issues only applies to certain cars and not all EV's, albeit mostly EV's as many are from brands that don't yet have a full service network established here...Subjective and debatable, again, not based in fact..
- There's no lack of charging points other than for people on terraced streets/flats etc, that are not expected by the governments to be among the first generation of adopters, and also don't need to be...... Apart from the fact that most city dwellers live in terraced houses or flats, and I'm guessing that's a large proportion of the population, the anecdotal evidence is that there are not enough charging points.
I suspect you'll reply to this by debunking my arguments somehow, rather than accepting that the truth is up for debate.
Edited by P.Griffin on Friday 8th March 12:38
There is zero chance of you ever accepting my pov on any of the points that you claim are debatable, you won't even accept the environmental point which is unequivocal.
I would suggest you focus on that first point and go and read some unbiased studies - then you have a starting point and a somewhat more open mind to look at the wider debate, without misaligned prejudice.
Nomme de Plum said:
Rare earth metals have been mined for usage in many industries including ICE cars.
EV batteries do not contain rare earth metals.The Rare Earth Metals and their Applications
A widely accepted definition of the rare earth metals is the group of
elements containing the lanthanides, scandium and yttrium, as they all
exhibit similar chemical properties.
| Element | Example Applications |
|---|---|
| Scandium | metal alloys for the aerospace industry |
| Yttrium | phosphors, ceramics, metal alloys |
| Lanthanum | batteries, catalysts for petroleum refining |
| Cerium | catalysts, polishing, metal alloys |
| Praseodymium | improved magnet corrosion resistance, pigment |
| Neodymium | high power magnets for laptops, lasers |
| Promethium | beta radiation source |
| Samarium | high temperature magnets, reactor control rods |
| Europium | liquid crystal displays, fluorescent lighting |
| Gadolinium | magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent |
| Terbium | phosphors for lighting and display |
| Dysprosium | high power magnets, lasers |
| Holmium | the highest power magnets known |
| Erbium | lasers, glass colorant |
| Thulium | ceramic magnetic materials under development |
| Ytterbium | fibre optic technology, solar panels |
| Lutetium | X-ray phosphors |
Mammasaid said:
monkfish1 said:
TheDeuce said:
A full modern wing mirror is about £1000 these days.
You can buy a 4k waterproof micro camera with infra red for night vision for about £150. I imagine replacements for the first cars to have them will be more, and the housing cost too - but it's very evident that camera tech isn't fundamentally pricey these days.
Then factor in the camera sticks out far less and is thus far less to get damaged in the first place.
No, really, its not. You are not comparing apples with elephants.You can buy a 4k waterproof micro camera with infra red for night vision for about £150. I imagine replacements for the first cars to have them will be more, and the housing cost too - but it's very evident that camera tech isn't fundamentally pricey these days.
Then factor in the camera sticks out far less and is thus far less to get damaged in the first place.
The actual price will be sub £100. The mark-up on a £1k mirror will be substantial as a spare part.
I just looked up the cost of a replacement mirror for my wife's Corsa. Electric with heating. £80. all in, full assembly. Sure, it's primered. That will cost a bit to sort out.
By the time your "cheap" camera is available as a spare part over the counter, it wont be cheap any more. No doubt well over £1k And you can bet it will need coding to the car and calibrating. That will cost way more than painting.
I've just looked up for a new replacement mirror for a Seat Ateca, £629.18 for the mirror housing alone for the most common variant used.
https://seatdirectparts.co.uk/parts/ateca/body-pan...
Plus cover, glass and paint would easily take you over £1k.
TheDeuce said:
The evidence, absolute evidence
I thought this would be the case.
You are correct about one thing however. There is no point in debating with someone who doesn't read and understand what is put in front of them. Rather than disagree with all your points as you have said, I agreed with one of your points, questioned a couple of your others and disagreed on 2.
Extremists cannot be debated with. I can agee with you on that one.
Edited by P.Griffin on Friday 8th March 13:57
TheDeuce said:
P.Griffin said:
TheDeuce said:
The evidence, absolute evidence
I thought this would be the case.
You are correct about one thing however. There is no point in debating with someone who doesn't read and understand what is put in front of them. Rather than disagree with all your points as you have said, I agreed with one of your points, questioned a couple of your others and disagreed on 2.
Extremists cannot be debated with. I can agree with you on that one.
P.Griffin said:
The trouble is, I do try and research and come up with things like this https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and... but people like you try to tell me otherwise and are convinced by it. Hence, there is no room for debate with extremists.
And that is a perfectly valid article but how about taking a more holistic approach comparing all elements of EV production and lifecycle including electricity generation and usage and then do the same thing with the ICE production furl extraction and refining etc.etc. Cradle to grave for both. Looking at just one element is a bit pointless as it's only part of the picture so really is of little use.
Nomme de Plum said:
P.Griffin said:
The trouble is, I do try and research and come up with things like this https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and... but people like you try to tell me otherwise and are convinced by it. Hence, there is no room for debate with extremists.
And that is a perfectly valid article but how about taking a more holistic approach comparing all elements of EV production and lifecycle including electricity generation and usage and then do the same thing with the ICE production furl extraction and refining etc.etc. Cradle to grave for both. Looking at just one element is a bit pointless as it's only part of the picture so really is of little use.
While you mention longevity, how about the end of life for the battery and it's eventual replacement with new ones. We just don't know how long these things will last, so there's no consensus of the true lifespan of EVs. There is no "grave" for an ICE really.
Edited by P.Griffin on Friday 8th March 16:03
Edited by P.Griffin on Friday 8th March 16:04
P.Griffin said:
Nomme de Plum said:
P.Griffin said:
The trouble is, I do try and research and come up with things like this https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and... but people like you try to tell me otherwise and are convinced by it. Hence, there is no room for debate with extremists.
And that is a perfectly valid article but how about taking a more holistic approach comparing all elements of EV production and lifecycle including electricity generation and usage and then do the same thing with the ICE production furl extraction and refining etc.etc. Cradle to grave for both. Looking at just one element is a bit pointless as it's only part of the picture so really is of little use.
While you mention longevity, how about the end of life for the battery and it's eventual replacement with new ones. We just don't know how long these things will last, so there's no consensus of the true lifespan of EVs. There is no "grave" for an ICE really.
Edited by P.Griffin on Friday 8th March 16:03
Edited by P.Griffin on Friday 8th March 16:04
We did not allow the public to decide about smoking it was a necessary and enforced restriction. The EV roll out is similar but over a very prolonged period and nobody is being stopped from owning or running an ICE. I do not intend to repost the year on year mandated sales growth but in 2035 15M EVs will be on the roads. That's still well less than 50% f the 33M cars we now have. Post 2035 the numbers will grow at about 2M per annum.
Of course there is a grave for any vehicle. It's when it is beyond economic repair. Spares do not get manufctured for ever.
My insurance went down when I changed from a Merc estate to the EV even though the value went up significantly. My fuel cost are less than 3p per mile.
As for range I bought a town car because most of my journeys are under 50miles return. I've done a couple 200 mile each way with no problem at all. Anecdotal I know but that's just the way it is.
I'm an Engineer by training and have owned a couple of Lotus's one of which i turned into a 380 bhp track car a few TVRs and loads of other stuff. EVs either are or will be better by every normal metric for the general public.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Friday 8th March 16:35
P.Griffin said:
Unlike Deuce, I am willing to agree with your point. I was using that as an example. There are so many opinions and skewed research that I find it hard to make a truly impartial judgement. The point I was initially trying to convey before being stamped on by the extremist, was that the market will decide on EVs future when tax payers subsidies run out. EV doesn't work for me right now (range, cost, lack of chargers in the city, high insurance) so I won't buy one as an individual, and I don't have access to company schemes. So extremists going around vilifying those who can't afford an EV or don't have access to chargers is quite unpalatable.
While you mention longevity, how about the end of life for the battery and it's eventual replacement with new ones. We just don't know how long these things will last, so there's no consensus of the true lifespan of EVs. There is no "grave" for an ICE really.
The efficiency aspect is interesting. My EV has consumed around 2,300 MW of electricity and covered 8,800 miles, so 261watts per mile.While you mention longevity, how about the end of life for the battery and it's eventual replacement with new ones. We just don't know how long these things will last, so there's no consensus of the true lifespan of EVs. There is no "grave" for an ICE really.
Edited by P.Griffin on Friday 8th March 16:03
Edited by P.Griffin on Friday 8th March 16:04
Its predecessor was a petrol car of similar size and performance, and used around 600 watts per mile.
Costs are around 2p electric and 14p petrol per mile.
The EV is a better drive, the instant and linear throttle response is a joy.
Downsides are the app is s
te, the boot is a bit cramped and it could do with another 50 miles range. P.Griffin said:
TheDeuce said:
P.Griffin said:
TheDeuce said:
The evidence, absolute evidence
I thought this would be the case.
You are correct about one thing however. There is no point in debating with someone who doesn't read and understand what is put in front of them. Rather than disagree with all your points as you have said, I agreed with one of your points, questioned a couple of your others and disagreed on 2.
Extremists cannot be debated with. I can agree with you on that one.
All you have done is link to a piece talking about how to decarbonise the batteries. Well that's true, they could be cleaner - of course they could. But that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that cars that use those dirty batteries are already cleaner overall, despite the batteries.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/com...
It's really not difficult to understand.
P.Griffin said:
The government are putting their eggs in 1 basket yet again, at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
This is not the case when you stop thinking about cars only.Electrification of cars is the enabler that allows other transportation sectors (and non transportation sectors) to use significantly less effective decarbonisation solutions because they have no choice.
The basket of ‘all of society’ has several eggs in it, including hydrogen/efuel/biofuel/ammonia/etc.
Using those alternatives in the largest energy consumption sector, where battery electric is viable, to the detriment of the sectors where it isn’t, is counterproductive and borderline idiotic.
The end result would be a fail for every sector because of the magnitudes of energy involved and the various pathway efficiencies.
Battery electric propulsion has comprehensively proven itself to be far lower than any other solution in terms of lifetime footprint for both CO2 and noxious emissions.
As an engineer who has worked in this field for a lifetime I can guarantee that, in the here and now, it is impossible to break the intrinsic relationship between pathway efficiency and carbon footprint.
I would normally back up a statement like that with multiple sources of evidence, but I think we are past that now, it’s been nearly 10 years that I’ve been posting as such. It must surely be getting boring as hell for the longer term posters on these threads.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff