RE: Cars we won't regret going electric: Speed Matters

[Mr GrimNasty]

GT119 said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

GT119 said:

In theory, EVs can be produced, operated and disposed of/recycled using entirely renewable energy, let's call it fossil-free motoring, at which point I think the argument that the planet as whole will be meaningfully better-off start to become real.

No they can't.

Renewable energy (wind/solar) is so inefficient the only way society could run off it would be to revert to 17th century population levels and standards of living.

This is the lie people are being fed/ swallowing (and that CAGW is actually a real threat).

The only way to zero carbon economy is Nuclear, but for some strange reason the eco-socialist-fascists don't want the only viable solution.

Despite the massive environmental vandalism and pollution and slaughtered wildlife in the name of windmills and solar PV, and the even more massive cost in cash, they still only provide very low single % off global primary energy, and no drastic increase is in the offing (a 100% increase in SFA is still SFA), fossil fuels will provide the bulk of the world's energy to 2040 and way beyond.

I agree that nuclear needs to be apart of the solution, I consider it to be a renewable.

The point is that Nuclear is NOT part of the world's renewable strategy - shutting it down is!

The reality is EVs will be as, if not more, environmentally damaging, than ICE cars, and the power they use in manufacture and charging will be predominately from fossil fuels for as far as anyone can realistically guess.

[RobDickinson]

Most first world countries have sizable renewable generation already and growing.

But even if you just burned fossils and have EVs instead of ice cars it works out more efficient and cleaner.

[DonkeyApple]

RobDickinson said:

Most first world countries have sizable renewable generation already and growing.

But even if you just burned fossils and have EVs instead of ice cars it works out more efficient and cleaner.

Yes to the latter. It makes perfect sense to try and convert suburban/urban ICE utility transports to EV. In theory the EV should last longer so amortising the initial pollution of production over a longer period and also dropping direct pollution where the vast majority of the population live and work. All good and all sensible. So long as the tech can stand on its own two feet commercially. We simply mustn't still be subsidising the market when it is no longer an indulgence for a few metropolitan elites. And nor do we want to see it being made price competitive via the loading of taxation on ICE. Both tactics are massive costs born by the poor to benefit the rich. It's crucial that within the next 5 or so years the cost of batteries becomes competitive so the market can stand on its own two feet and naturally replace ICE as the defacto economic option for the average household.

Re the first point, this is something that is essential to the UK regardless of the EV debate. Our domestic oil production has kept this country afloat for the last 40 years. It will be gone in our lifetimes and we must ensure that we are producing our own power domestically so as to not be at the mercy of others. Although giving the Chinese the on/off switch to our only new nuclear power station somewhat defeats that object entirely. Paying the Chinese 8% on their money is absolutely insane when a pensioner bond could have raised all the funds needed for nearer to 5% and kept the coupon in the U.K. economy while delivering essential secure investment yield to pensioners. Same goes for all the PFI deals. Government contracts should be financed by 'people's bonds' not overseas borrowing.

[Ron99]

RobDickinson said:

....Most first world countries have sizable renewable generation already and growing.......

I have solar panels on my roof, fitted several years ago. They were only worth installing because of a very generous government subsidy - paid for by getting utility companies to add the cost onto consumer's bills. Without the subsidy they would have taken several decades to pay back what they cost - assuming they work for that long.
Having seen the extreme variation in their generation from one day to the next and from the long summer days to the short winter days, there is no way a nation could run on solar unless a way is found to cost-effectively store the power.

Here are my generation stats for the last five days:
Yesterday: 6.5kWh
Monday: 16.5kWh
Sunday: 14.5kWh
Saturday: 18.9kWh
Friday: 21.1kWh
That's more than three-fold between the worst day and the best day.
Average 15.5kWh per day.

And five-day stats for exactly six months ago (8th-12th January):
12th Jan: 0.7kWh
11th Jan: 2.3kWh
10th Jan: 2.7kWh
09th Jan: 0.8kWh
08th Jan: 2.7kWh
Again, more than three-fold difference between the worst and best days.
Average: 1.8kWh per day - only a fraction of what is generated in the longer, stronger-sun days of summer.

I suspect wind power is even more variable from day to day, but probably far less seasonal influence.

[anonymous-user]

Mr GrimNasty said:

GT119 said:

In theory, EVs can be produced, operated and disposed of/recycled using entirely renewable energy, let's call it fossil-free motoring, at which point I think the argument that the planet as whole will be meaningfully better-off start to become real.

No they can't.

Renewable energy (wind/solar) is so inefficient the only way society could run off it would be to revert to 17th century population levels and standards of living.

This is the lie people are being fed/ swallowing (and that CAGW is actually a real threat).

The only way to zero carbon economy is Nuclear, but for some strange reason the eco-socialist-fascists don't want the only viable solution.

Despite the massive environmental vandalism and pollution and slaughtered wildlife in the name of windmills and solar PV, and the even more massive cost in cash, they still only provide very low single % off global primary energy, and no drastic increase is in the offing (a 100% increase in SFA is still SFA), fossil fuels will provide the bulk of the world's energy to 2040 and way beyond.

Are you a daily mail reader by any chance?

If you had even half a brain, it should be obvious that statements like "Renewable energy (wind/solar) is so inefficient" is clearly b*ll*cks. And if you can tell the difference (or are too stupid to understand the difference) between Efficiency and Energy Density, then why should i listen to a single thing you say??


The one think we get time, and time again with Ev's and Green tech, is people without the intelligence to understand what they are talking about making snap, biased judgement on the basis of how they feel.... (brexit anyone?? lol)

[Whitean3]

Thermobaric said:

Rolls Royces and Bentleys like the Mulsanne and Flying Spurs.

Designed to be ultra quiet anyway so not missing out on sound e.t.c. Plus wouldn't have to worry about the ruinous MPG.

The more you think about it, the more sense this makes. Weight is never an issue for these behemoths, neither is lack of sound. Cars are big enough to pack in a lot of batteries, hence better range; they are already eye wateringly expensive, so the cost of an EV essentially disappears too. And performance would be more than adequate too.

I would absolutely love to see an electric Rolls Royce get built- use the Tesla tech but with all the luxurious trappings

[GT119]

Max_Torque said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

GT119 said:

In theory, EVs can be produced, operated and disposed of/recycled using entirely renewable energy, let's call it fossil-free motoring, at which point I think the argument that the planet as whole will be meaningfully better-off start to become real.

No they can't.

Renewable energy (wind/solar) is so inefficient the only way society could run off it would be to revert to 17th century population levels and standards of living.

This is the lie people are being fed/ swallowing (and that CAGW is actually a real threat).

The only way to zero carbon economy is Nuclear, but for some strange reason the eco-socialist-fascists don't want the only viable solution.

Despite the massive environmental vandalism and pollution and slaughtered wildlife in the name of windmills and solar PV, and the even more massive cost in cash, they still only provide very low single % off global primary energy, and no drastic increase is in the offing (a 100% increase in SFA is still SFA), fossil fuels will provide the bulk of the world's energy to 2040 and way beyond.

Are you a daily mail reader by any chance?

If you had even half a brain, it should be obvious that statements like "Renewable energy (wind/solar) is so inefficient" is clearly b*ll*cks. And if you can tell the difference (or are too stupid to understand the difference) between Efficiency and Energy Density, then why should i listen to a single thing you say??


The one think we get time, and time again with Ev's and Green tech, is people without the intelligence to understand what they are talking about making snap, biased judgement on the basis of how they feel.... (brexit anyone?? lol)

You don't choose a username like that to indicate a balanced and informed opinion.

I think the answer to the question is that the thread title is just missing a comma after the first word

[RayTay]

Vehicle IC engines are responsible for the vast majority of the pollution that kills 4,000 per year and puts counteless others in respetory misery. Then the blackening of buildings creating dreary towns and cities.

Make them zero emissions and all that is eliminated. It is that simple. EVs give all that.

Germany recently peaked at 85% electricity produced by renewables. The UK and Ireland can be 100% free of fossil fuels by building tidal lagoons. One is being trialled on Swansea.

[RayTay]

People should look up James Lovelock. He says we need to go renewables and nuclear ASAP. He analysed the atmosphere of Mars for NASA. He realised no one had done Earth, so he did. He says we are at a tipping point.

People have to be forcibly stopped from polluting.

[Farmboy UK]

The comment about wind efficiency is laughable. Wind is very efficient and the cheapest method of power generation we have.

And this concern about storing power is the actual issue. The problem in this country (and most) is peak loads. Right now, if half a million people stuck a battery pack on their house we could close multiple power stations.

Grid storage is actually the medium term solution until we catch up with the renewable generation. It also happens to be clean, cheap, and safe.

[RayTay]

Farmboy UK said:

The comment about wind efficiency is laughable. .

As there is no cost input, everything out is 100% efficient. Efficiency is the difference between what you put in and what you get out. With wind turbines there is no human cost in its running

Edited by RayTay on Wednesday 12th July 21:04

[mwstewart]

RayTay said:

Vehicle IC engines are responsible for the vast majority of the pollution that kills 4,000 per year and puts counteless others in respetory misery. Then the blackening of buildings creating dreary towns and cities.

Make them zero emissions and all that is eliminated. It is that simple. EVs give all that.

Germany recently peaked at 85% electricity produced by renewables. The UK and Ireland can be 100% free of fossil fuels by building tidal lagoons. One is being trialled on Swansea.

RayTay said:

People should look up James Lovelock. He says we need to go renewables and nuclear ASAP. He analysed the atmosphere of Mars for NASA. He realised no one had done Earth, so he did. He says we are at a tipping point.

People have to be forcibly stopped from polluting.

Where is your source for the 4000? Are you talking about COPD or something else? I looked into COPD to try to understand the sudden focus on respiratory issues when it's never really had a mention before; it's only recently being discussed when actually pollution levels have been getting better in cities, not worse - I've certainly not heard any friends, family, relatives, or neighbours die from respiratory disease. Cancer on the other hand has been wide reaching and affected many people I know.

My brief research was on the data published by the British Lung Foundation which shows that the numbers do not become significant until over the age of 61, when there is a gulf between those dying in that age range (circa 22k) and those in the previous range (51-60 - circa 2.2k). The number of young people (31-40) was minuscule in comparison (less than 100).

Those currently aged 61 and above have lived through times of much less regulated products e.g. paints, older central heating systems, more coal fires and general pollution in cities, so I could not see how there can be a definitive link between most of those dying and current air pollution, especially given that the onset of COPD isn't on average until 30 years old.

Can you post some links to what you are talking about? I'd like to understand it. My current view is that the risk is disproportionate to the fuss being made about it; if we were talking about New Delhi or Beijing I wouldn't question it.

[RayTay]

My father died from respiratory problems through air pollution in a city. Look at the blackened buildings that will give you a clue. Pollution is still bad in cities. Also the dust from brake pads adds to it.

Marylebone Road in London is one of the most polluted roads in the EU. Boris Johnson was continually fined for exceeding the limit.

If you are trying to say cars do not kill people you are talking through your rear end.

Edited by RayTay on Wednesday 12th July 21:52

[mwstewart]

RayTay said:

My father died from respiratory problems through air pollution in a city. Look at the blackened buildings that will give you a clue. Pollution is still bad in cities. Also the dust from brake pads adds to it.

Marylebone Road in London is one of the most polluted roads in the EU. Boris Johnson was continually fined for exceeding the limit.

Sorry to hear that.

My understanding is the black on stone buildings is soot (diesel) or legacy pollution from the 20th century.

[mwstewart]

Oh, you edited your post. You seem to be harbouring a lot of angst - it may do you some good to talk to someone about that.

Again, I think the risk of air pollution is being overstated and I also think most of it is likely from earlier i.e. more polluting diesel vehicles.

Provide some some links/data and I'll have a read.

[Willy Nilly]

Ron99 said:

Having seen the extreme variation in their generation from one day to the next and from the long summer days to the short winter days, there is no way a nation could run on solar unless a way is found to cost-effectively store the power.

It can't have come as a surprise to you that the output of the PV panels depends on how sunny it is outside.

The UK isn't about to get all of it's power from solar energy, it's about having a portfolio of power sources.

If you run on coal, it's dirty and Arthur Scargil has you over a barrel.
If you run on gas, it's less dirty but the Arabs have you over a barrel.
If you run on nuclear, it's clean, but the decommissioning and disposal of spent fuel and tricky and Greenpeace won't shut up.
If you run on wind, the fuel is free, clean and limitless but sometimes you get no fuel, same with solar.

So you want something reliable providing the base load, then make as much use as you can of wind, solar, tidal or what ever provides free power. Then you want to use technology to use what you are generating as efficiently as possible.

[Plinth]

Whitean3 said:

Thermobaric said:

Rolls Royces and Bentleys like the Mulsanne and Flying Spurs.

Designed to be ultra quiet anyway so not missing out on sound e.t.c. Plus wouldn't have to worry about the ruinous MPG.

The more you think about it, the more sense this makes. Weight is never an issue for these behemoths, neither is lack of sound. Cars are big enough to pack in a lot of batteries, hence better range; they are already eye wateringly expensive, so the cost of an EV essentially disappears too. And performance would be more than adequate too.

I would absolutely love to see an electric Rolls Royce get built- use the Tesla tech but with all the luxurious trappings

Bentley used to advertise their products as "The Silent Sportscar" (many years ago...) and an electric Mulsanne would be very quiet....so perhaps they might?

[DonkeyApple]

Plinth said:

Bentley used to advertise their products as "The Silent Sportscar" (many years ago...) and an electric Mulsanne would be very quiet....so perhaps they might?

Electric motors are perfect for a big wafty barge that wants bags of torque and silent, smooth delivery plus can carry the battery weight. Especially given the current economics involved.

[RayTay]

Willy Nilly said:

If you run on coal, it's dirty and Arthur Scargil has you over a barrel.

how naive. A Dail Mail reader no doubt.

[RayTay]

mwstewart said:

My understanding is the black on stone buildings is soot (diesel) or legacy pollution from the 20th century.

A building near me is 20 years old. Yellow brick and now heavily stained. All via vehicle pollution.