RE: Volvo reveals 408hp C40 Recharge

RE: Volvo reveals 408hp C40 Recharge

Author
Discussion

CDP

6,777 posts

219 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
tonyg58 said:
You also have to contend with the fallacy that electricity is clean energy.
Most of the world's electricity is generated from fossil fuels, and a huge amount of it is still from that wonderful clean power source - coal.
In the UK at least that has been changing fast.

PH User

17,635 posts

73 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
Agree. Nothings is going to surpass going up through the gears, building to the power, trying to stay on it than a good petrol engine. But even those suffer from downsizing, forced induction and 8+ speed gearboxes all designed to maintain a small rev range and always hunt economy.

The diesel thing on PH was plain weird in that overnight, haters become lovers and banged on and on about not having to go to petrol stations as often, the instant torque and numerous other things when all it was about was money. I'm pretty confident the same will happen with EVs. Haters will become devout evangelicals when their prices drop far enough and they are no longer the preserve of the more affluent. Arguably, because of those affluent origins the reversal could be even more robust.
It wasn't all about money, but yes that was one thing that could be good about a diesel.


I say that as someone who is neither a lover or a hater

Pistotter

13 posts

19 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
Speedraser said:
He said keep the car you already own. In which case, there would be zero additional polution from manufacturing a new car, its engine/motor, and its batteries.

The emissions produced by a car while in use is just one part of the environmental picture. Most of the materials to make electric drivetrains and batteries come from China -- the world's greatest polluter BY FAR. Mining, manufacturing, etc, those materials is extremely bad for the environment -- this is so often ignored. Vastly more electric cars means vastly more production from China -- and vastly more pollution from that production. Per the Paris agreement, China doesn't even have to start reducing its pollution for another decade! Oh, and there is no mechanism to enforce even that. And then there's the economic dependence on China for those electric drivetrain materials. To be clear, I'm not saying that electric cars are bad, or that they won't help the environment long-term. Whether that's the case depends on many things. What truly matters is the "cradle-to-grave" pollution. The notion that EVs are "pollution-free" or that they are only solution, grossly ignores so many issues that are critically important to actually addressing the problem, rather than merely politicking.

Edited by Speedraser on Wednesday 3rd March 02:58
^^^^^^This.

I read this morning that..."if transport were electrified, there would be less demand for oil to fill tanks with petrol. Yet, as the demand for dirty power for electricity would surge, overall emissions would drop by only 2% by 2050 (compared with a business-as-usual baseline). If the grid were cleaned up first, though, then emissions would fall by about 30%". https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/20...

Our f*wit leaders believed all the green propaganda and conned us into thinking smart meters were a 'good thing' and that compact fluorescent lamps were the dog's do-da's and now cars like this.

Not a climate change denier but FFS be realistic and balanced about it and don't swallow whatever the sandal wearers spout.

Phew, that's better.....