RE: The best used electric cars to buy right now
Discussion
whp1983 said:
burman said:
As usual some very comprehensive comments showing that PHers in general are an intelligent bunch.
There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Pfft amateur- if everyone in north london drives a tesla to Waitrose the world is saved- we all know that. There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
GT9 said:
In order to make existing ICEs last longer by looking after them better, you would need to ‘throw money at them’. ICEs are complex machines that wear out. The reason they are scrapped or recycled after 15 years, on average, is because it is not economical to keep them going.
It’s really got nothing to do with the behaviour of new car buyers at the other end of the market. In any case, the vast majority of the carbon footprint of an ICE is from operating them.
Which makes the attempt at keeping them going longer somewhat futile from a carbon perspective. If EVs didn’t exist, there would still be a case for replacing old with new when it is economically prudent to do do.
Whilst your point about excessive consumption is entirely correct in principle, when it comes to ICE cars, the uncomfortable truth is that unless we become less dependent on them, you cannot make a meaningful difference by making them last longer.
This is particularly uncomfortable for owners/buyers at the bottom end of the used car market who want to believe that they are doing the planet a favour by hanging onto old cars and that new car buyers are the bad boys.
The crux of the issue is that it’s the consumption of fossil fuel that is the root cause of the carbon problem, not the consumption of new cars.
If you want to reduce the carbon footprint of an ICE that is already in use, you either have to reduce your annual mileage and/or reduce your average speed.
Plenty of restrictions/changes to legislation is already happening to force this behaviour upon us. Forcing new car buyers to choose EVs over ICEs is just another step along that road.
I don’t think anyone’s doubting the logic of your arguments, it’s just that some object to the insufferable way you make them.It’s really got nothing to do with the behaviour of new car buyers at the other end of the market. In any case, the vast majority of the carbon footprint of an ICE is from operating them.
Which makes the attempt at keeping them going longer somewhat futile from a carbon perspective. If EVs didn’t exist, there would still be a case for replacing old with new when it is economically prudent to do do.
Whilst your point about excessive consumption is entirely correct in principle, when it comes to ICE cars, the uncomfortable truth is that unless we become less dependent on them, you cannot make a meaningful difference by making them last longer.
This is particularly uncomfortable for owners/buyers at the bottom end of the used car market who want to believe that they are doing the planet a favour by hanging onto old cars and that new car buyers are the bad boys.
The crux of the issue is that it’s the consumption of fossil fuel that is the root cause of the carbon problem, not the consumption of new cars.
If you want to reduce the carbon footprint of an ICE that is already in use, you either have to reduce your annual mileage and/or reduce your average speed.
Plenty of restrictions/changes to legislation is already happening to force this behaviour upon us. Forcing new car buyers to choose EVs over ICEs is just another step along that road.
Your view about ‘owners/buyers at the bottom end of the used car market who want to believe they are doing the planet a favour…’ is particularly telling. Our household income is well into six figures but I choose to drive a 15-year-old 3 litre Subaru – a car well-known for its heavy fuel consumption and high VED. I acknowledge that you consider this an illogical, selfish and stupid choice. For the amount I spend on VED and fuel every month, I could (just about) lease a Renault Zoe, a good car but not really a direct replacement. If I was a little less tight-fisted, and concerned about what others thought of me, I would lease an Ioniq 5, but I am and I’m not.
I guess I should scrap the Subaru as, apparently, it’s uneconomical to keep but, in reality, it’s very easy to keep going because I look after it and, when I do have to use a garage for maintenance, I like the fact that it’s local and my money is not going directly to one of a few conglomerates, or to Elon or, worse, businesses at the beck and call of the CCP.
The Legacy is also a great old bus to drive – lightweight and fun and doesn’t block the view of other road users but, hey, that’s probably a discussion for another forum..!
The size of one’s carbon footprint is down to lifestyle. I suspect lots of new EV owners have a higher-consumption, higher co2 emitting lifestyles than me. I have no doubt that the Legacy’s replacement will be a BEV but I’ll hang on to it for now, thanks, and risk your opprobrium for a little while longer.
burman said:
As usual some very comprehensive comments showing that PHers in general are an intelligent bunch.
There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Sure but the EU is in lockstep with the UK on ICE bans so that's another 9%. Meanwhile BEVs hit 22% mix in China through this year and is drafting its own legislation. US is likely to move towards 2035 bans in some of the most populous states. So it's not just about the UK although we have a role to play.There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Long, long before all of that though most manufacturers will have moved focus to EV, it's highly unlikely there will be much of an ICE range to buy in 2030 let alone 2035.
Porsche - plans to move EV for Macan and Boxster in the next 3 years. Panamera/Cayenne later in the decade
BMW - All M Models will be an EV by end of the decade and 2025 for 3 series/X3 sized cars
Stellantis - no new non-EVs launches post 2026
Bentley - 2030 all BEV
Rolls Royce - all electric by 2030
VW - 70% by 2030, no more ICE development after 2026
Mercedes - 80% cut in ICE development by 2026 and 40bn Euros in EVs. Likely to be all EV sooner than the date above
Volvo (and Geely in China) - All electric by 2030
Genesis - All electric by 2025
Renault - All electric by 2030
Most Chinese domestic makers are already all electric or sub 2000cc
So whilst this is a UK discussion, the wider debate and EU legislation mean that it's global. What exactly is the rest of the world going to be driving if none of the major OEMs are selling non-EVs? For South America, India and maybe the US I can see some locally produced stuff carrying on a bit longer but I don't think much longer.
Charlie_1 said:
whp1983 said:
burman said:
As usual some very comprehensive comments showing that PHers in general are an intelligent bunch.
There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Pfft amateur- if everyone in north london drives a tesla to Waitrose the world is saved- we all know that. There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
bennytheball said:
I acknowledge that you consider this an illogical, selfish and stupid choice.
I've never said that, in fact I said the opposite yesterday that this topic is NOT about individual choices and no individual should be judging other individual's choices.It may surprise you that I'm actually doing the old ICE thing myself, so I'm also at the 'bottom' end of the used car market.
The use of that word was not intended to be a comment about wealth, and I appreciate that I should have used a different word.
I used it because it was at the bottom of the list of buyers I made reference to in my previous post.
I totally agree that generally 'buying new stuff' is not the way to 'save the planet'.
The message I'm trying to convey (badly and brusquely it would seem) it that ongoing consumption of petrol and diesel is ALSO 'buying new stuff' as far as the planet is concerned.
And this is seemingly complete ignored by those who want to shout down EVs, often, in my experience, by people in the same position as me but who want to justify their actions by passing judgment on others, whilst not realising that their 'consumption' is no better and possibly worse.
I guess I can't hide the fact that it annoys me, particularly so if it's an ageing diesel which is very likely to be churning out a whole heap of other nasties as well.
The other thing that annoys me is when people pass judgment on those buying a new car every three years. The fact that the used car market is 8 million cars a year vs under 2 million for new cars should make it plainly obvious that new car buyers are an obvious minority, and that supply and demand in the used car market means that it makes no difference whether a specific individual is doing that.
Combine the two and I get doubly annoyed!
I will attempt to de-opprobriumise my future posts.
DriveSnowdonia said:
Is that the same Klaus Schwab who travels the world by private jet, along with the other very wealthy protagonists of the Global Warming
Climate Change
Climate Crisis Climate Emergency agenda?
gtechrob said:
from a progression POV - once self driving cars become a thing. The next logical step will be to move to private transport as a service as it is correct that over 90% of cars are parked at any one time which reinforces the argument that private cars are an incredibly wasteful thing.
You can bet your bottom dollar that us enthusiasts will get priced out of the joy of every day driving and driving per se will become a minority interest.
I wonder if the people advocating this will be as zealous when it comes to cutting back on their "wasteful" foreign travel, weekend breaks and other leisure activities? Will they draw the line at banning meat and fast fashion? Or will they finally be happy when we're living in pods and plugged in to 'The Matrix' whilst being fed plant-based slop via a tube?You can bet your bottom dollar that us enthusiasts will get priced out of the joy of every day driving and driving per se will become a minority interest.
gtechrob said:
Doubt it will be in my life time though.
I hope for the same...but I'm only 33.Fastlane said:
Charlie_1 said:
whp1983 said:
burman said:
As usual some very comprehensive comments showing that PHers in general are an intelligent bunch.
There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Pfft amateur- if everyone in north london drives a tesla to Waitrose the world is saved- we all know that. There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Edited by Charlie_1 on Thursday 4th August 15:33
Charlie_1 said:
Fastlane said:
Charlie_1 said:
whp1983 said:
burman said:
As usual some very comprehensive comments showing that PHers in general are an intelligent bunch.
There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Pfft amateur- if everyone in north london drives a tesla to Waitrose the world is saved- we all know that. There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Edited by Charlie_1 on Thursday 4th August 15:33
Fastlane said:
I never accused you of bring anti-EV, in the same way as i'm not anti ICE. Thanks for the name calling though,much appreciated.
to be fair you posted... your views are fueled by a feeling that the rise of the EV will emasculate you in some way? Hardly a non-inflammatory statement/questionmurphyaj said:
The trouble with this logic is that there are over 200 countries in the world. If only those who are responsible for more than 4% of emissions need to do anything about it then everyone except China, The USA, India and Russia can say it's someone else's problem. But all of them combined are only 55% of emissions. And most of China's emissions is from manufacturing all the stuff that everyone else buys.
When there are 7bn people on the planet each and every one of them can reasonably make the argument that their own personal contribution is so infinitesimally small that they don't need to do anything. Even someone who has a private jet will be a tiny fraction of a percent. But if everyone things like that then nobody will do anything.
be careful - too much talk of the UK leading the world and you'll be accused of "...yearning for Empire..." or being "...a white saviour..."When there are 7bn people on the planet each and every one of them can reasonably make the argument that their own personal contribution is so infinitesimally small that they don't need to do anything. Even someone who has a private jet will be a tiny fraction of a percent. But if everyone things like that then nobody will do anything.
Bryans69 said:
Nik Gnashers said:
GT9 said:
Nik Gnashers said:
Edit, just to add, charging a small EV uses 50 times the amount of electricity as a fridge.
Why post something like this, it's so obviously made up.A fridge uses between 200-400 kWh per year, lets say 300 kWh.
Multiply that by 50, you get 15,000 kWh.
An average EV can travel around 3 miles per kWh.
That gives 45,000 miles. Per year.
When the average mileage in the UK is under 8000...
A fridge-freezer with a decent energy class costs 5p an hour to use.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tips-advice/352867/h...
An EV with a very energy efficient system and small battery (Nissan Leaf as the example here) costs over £6 to charge which takes 13 hours.
The fridge-freezer example is based on constant running, yet once it is cold it will not use anything like 5p an hour as it sits doing nothing, already cold (unless you leave the door open).
Back of the net.
Additionally, in the article you quote, they actually use a figure of £4 if charging at home overnight.....
Back of the net maybe. Just the wrong one.....
My post was about the electricity consumed while charging an EV, not the running costs spread out over time.
It's a very interesting discussion, and I have been reading the posts and enjoying the discussion.
The recent wind generator fire near Hull is a great example of why EV's and this almost blind obsession with net zero power is unsustainable and in fact a lie.
"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift
The reason the blades of this wind turbine caught fire, was that they are essentially made of plastic. They are fibreglass, ie strands of glass coated in plastic. They have a lifespan of about 20 years (if they dont catch fire), Each turbine has 3 blades weighing 12 tonnes each, they cannot be recycled as the plastic and glass are mixed/melted together, When they are decommissioned, the only method of disposal is to bury them.
If we never built any more from this point in time, in 20 years we will have 11,000 buried turbine blades, that is 396,000 tonnes of plastic which will never decompose, not even in 1000's of years.
What about the concrete foundations ? There is no way to dispose of them.
Every cubic metre of concrete foundation has 100KG of steel embedded inside them, which is now useless.
Does anyone think the mining of all those minerals needed for these 1000's of tones of now useless concrete is any kinder to the environment than coal mining or drilling for oil for example.
Where are those mines I wonder .......
This is a looming environmental disaster. All driven by a blind obsession to produce electricity in a 'green' way, yet electricity bills are soaring and will continue to soar every year.
The exact same philosophy can be applied to EV's, mining all of the unsustainable minerals and metals to produce the batteries.
I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
Fastlane said:
Charlie_1 said:
Fastlane said:
Charlie_1 said:
whp1983 said:
burman said:
As usual some very comprehensive comments showing that PHers in general are an intelligent bunch.
There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Pfft amateur- if everyone in north london drives a tesla to Waitrose the world is saved- we all know that. There is one small elephant in the room though- the UK is responsible for only 1% of world CO2, so in the great scheme of things is as about as worrying as the state of your ashtray in your Rolls Royce.
Edited by Charlie_1 on Thursday 4th August 15:33
this is a genuine question what is it with you EVboys that you get an a-grade twitch on if someone questions your views , its not very reasonable is it ?
Nik Gnashers said:
In your obsession to score points, you have 'moved the goal posts' .
My post was about the electricity consumed while charging an EV, not the running costs spread out over time.
It's a very interesting discussion, and I have been reading the posts and enjoying the discussion.
The recent wind generator fire near Hull is a great example of why EV's and this almost blind obsession with net zero power is unsustainable and in fact a lie.
"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift
The reason the blades of this wind turbine caught fire, was that they are essentially made of plastic. They are fibreglass, ie strands of glass coated in plastic. They have a lifespan of about 20 years (if they dont catch fire), Each turbine has 3 blades weighing 12 tonnes each, they cannot be recycled as the plastic and glass are mixed/melted together, When they are decommissioned, the only method of disposal is to bury them.
If we never built any more from this point in time, in 20 years we will have 11,000 buried turbine blades, that is 396,000 tonnes of plastic which will never decompose, not even in 1000's of years.
What about the concrete foundations ? There is no way to dispose of them.
Every cubic metre of concrete foundation has 100KG of steel embedded inside them, which is now useless.
Does anyone think the mining of all those minerals needed for these 1000's of tones of now useless concrete is any kinder to the environment than coal mining or drilling for oil for example.
Where are those mines I wonder .......
This is a looming environmental disaster. All driven by a blind obsession to produce electricity in a 'green' way, yet electricity bills are soaring and will continue to soar every year.
The exact same philosophy can be applied to EV's, mining all of the unsustainable minerals and metals to produce the batteries.
I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
And surely we've got to think about the fact that electric cars don't actually produce their own power. All they are, really, are slave units to an external power source, whatever that may be. Siting the power source externally is, for all sorts of reasons, less efficient than making it integral to the vehicle; Kingdom-Brunel's pneumatic railway was an early example. My post was about the electricity consumed while charging an EV, not the running costs spread out over time.
It's a very interesting discussion, and I have been reading the posts and enjoying the discussion.
The recent wind generator fire near Hull is a great example of why EV's and this almost blind obsession with net zero power is unsustainable and in fact a lie.
"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift
The reason the blades of this wind turbine caught fire, was that they are essentially made of plastic. They are fibreglass, ie strands of glass coated in plastic. They have a lifespan of about 20 years (if they dont catch fire), Each turbine has 3 blades weighing 12 tonnes each, they cannot be recycled as the plastic and glass are mixed/melted together, When they are decommissioned, the only method of disposal is to bury them.
If we never built any more from this point in time, in 20 years we will have 11,000 buried turbine blades, that is 396,000 tonnes of plastic which will never decompose, not even in 1000's of years.
What about the concrete foundations ? There is no way to dispose of them.
Every cubic metre of concrete foundation has 100KG of steel embedded inside them, which is now useless.
Does anyone think the mining of all those minerals needed for these 1000's of tones of now useless concrete is any kinder to the environment than coal mining or drilling for oil for example.
Where are those mines I wonder .......
This is a looming environmental disaster. All driven by a blind obsession to produce electricity in a 'green' way, yet electricity bills are soaring and will continue to soar every year.
The exact same philosophy can be applied to EV's, mining all of the unsustainable minerals and metals to produce the batteries.
I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
All the impressive electric car figures come from the very end of the energy conversion chain, i.e. the chemical energy in the battery becoming electrical energy and turning the motor. That is a very efficient process, but it ignores completely what has happened upstream, in terms of how the electricity got to the battery in the first place.
Missy Charm said:
Nik Gnashers said:
In your obsession to score points, you have 'moved the goal posts' .
My post was about the electricity consumed while charging an EV, not the running costs spread out over time.
It's a very interesting discussion, and I have been reading the posts and enjoying the discussion.
The recent wind generator fire near Hull is a great example of why EV's and this almost blind obsession with net zero power is unsustainable and in fact a lie.
"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift
The reason the blades of this wind turbine caught fire, was that they are essentially made of plastic. They are fibreglass, ie strands of glass coated in plastic. They have a lifespan of about 20 years (if they dont catch fire), Each turbine has 3 blades weighing 12 tonnes each, they cannot be recycled as the plastic and glass are mixed/melted together, When they are decommissioned, the only method of disposal is to bury them.
If we never built any more from this point in time, in 20 years we will have 11,000 buried turbine blades, that is 396,000 tonnes of plastic which will never decompose, not even in 1000's of years.
What about the concrete foundations ? There is no way to dispose of them.
Every cubic metre of concrete foundation has 100KG of steel embedded inside them, which is now useless.
Does anyone think the mining of all those minerals needed for these 1000's of tones of now useless concrete is any kinder to the environment than coal mining or drilling for oil for example.
Where are those mines I wonder .......
This is a looming environmental disaster. All driven by a blind obsession to produce electricity in a 'green' way, yet electricity bills are soaring and will continue to soar every year.
The exact same philosophy can be applied to EV's, mining all of the unsustainable minerals and metals to produce the batteries.
I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
And surely we've got to think about the fact that electric cars don't actually produce their own power. All they are, really, are slave units to an external power source, whatever that may be. Siting the power source externally is, for all sorts of reasons, less efficient than making it integral to the vehicle; Kingdom-Brunel's pneumatic railway was an early example. My post was about the electricity consumed while charging an EV, not the running costs spread out over time.
It's a very interesting discussion, and I have been reading the posts and enjoying the discussion.
The recent wind generator fire near Hull is a great example of why EV's and this almost blind obsession with net zero power is unsustainable and in fact a lie.
"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift
The reason the blades of this wind turbine caught fire, was that they are essentially made of plastic. They are fibreglass, ie strands of glass coated in plastic. They have a lifespan of about 20 years (if they dont catch fire), Each turbine has 3 blades weighing 12 tonnes each, they cannot be recycled as the plastic and glass are mixed/melted together, When they are decommissioned, the only method of disposal is to bury them.
If we never built any more from this point in time, in 20 years we will have 11,000 buried turbine blades, that is 396,000 tonnes of plastic which will never decompose, not even in 1000's of years.
What about the concrete foundations ? There is no way to dispose of them.
Every cubic metre of concrete foundation has 100KG of steel embedded inside them, which is now useless.
Does anyone think the mining of all those minerals needed for these 1000's of tones of now useless concrete is any kinder to the environment than coal mining or drilling for oil for example.
Where are those mines I wonder .......
This is a looming environmental disaster. All driven by a blind obsession to produce electricity in a 'green' way, yet electricity bills are soaring and will continue to soar every year.
The exact same philosophy can be applied to EV's, mining all of the unsustainable minerals and metals to produce the batteries.
I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
All the impressive electric car figures come from the very end of the energy conversion chain, i.e. the chemical energy in the battery becoming electrical energy and turning the motor. That is a very efficient process, but it ignores completely what has happened upstream, in terms of how the electricity got to the battery in the first place.
Nik Gnashers said:
I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
Nik, wind power is incredibly low-carbon intensive, about 150 times lower than coal for example.A wind turbine typically has a carbon footprint associated with its manufacture and installation of 6000 tons per TWh.
Full adoption of 30 million EVs in the UK require about 90 TWh of electricity per year.
The installed carbon footprint for enough turbines to meet this demand is therefore just over 0.5 million tons per annum.
Using conservative values for say the years 2030-35, the carbon footprint difference between an EV operating entirely from wind and an ICE operating on petrol, you can save at least 1 ton per car per year, or 30 million tons for 30 million cars.
It costs around 0.5 million tons to save 30 million tons or more.
Sounds worth it to me.
Nik Gnashers said:
The recent wind generator fire near Hull is a great example of why EV's and this almost blind obsession with net zero power is unsustainable and in fact a lie.
"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift
I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
I think it's you that's the victim of brainwashing and emotion. Here's what was actually said, written by David Hughs, in a book edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon:"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift
I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
“The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”
Mr Homer-Dixon said about the misquote you used that "It’s worth noting that it would be pointless to put wind turbines in poor locations, and it’s trivial, or meaningless, to say that a turbine would never pay back its embedded energy in a poor location. So, 1) I didn’t write the text, 2) the text itself is selectively quoted, and 3) the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless. Three strikes."
Can you spot the difference? Can you see how someone selectively quoted him to try and make a point that isn't true? Can you see how you've been duped?
Charlie, Missy, Nik, Macc - well done for sticking with all the opinionated, greensplaining that you have admirably navigated for near 17 pages here…
These things are not the ‘messiah’ - they are just very naughty BEV’s…
If you want a BEV - good for you, but keep your holier than thou - virtue signalling guff in your own energy converter, who knows you may be able to generate enough watts to power up your dashpad…
Let’s not wait for 17 pages on the next one before calling it out.
These things are not the ‘messiah’ - they are just very naughty BEV’s…
If you want a BEV - good for you, but keep your holier than thou - virtue signalling guff in your own energy converter, who knows you may be able to generate enough watts to power up your dashpad…
Let’s not wait for 17 pages on the next one before calling it out.
Missy Charm said:
And surely we've got to think about the fact that electric cars don't actually produce their own power. All they are, really, are slave units to an external power source, whatever that may be. Siting the power source externally is, for all sorts of reasons, less efficient than making it integral to the vehicle; Kingdom-Brunel's pneumatic railway was an early example.
All the impressive electric car figures come from the very end of the energy conversion chain, i.e. the chemical energy in the battery becoming electrical energy and turning the motor. That is a very efficient process, but it ignores completely what has happened upstream, in terms of how the electricity got to the battery in the first place.
You are kidding right?All the impressive electric car figures come from the very end of the energy conversion chain, i.e. the chemical energy in the battery becoming electrical energy and turning the motor. That is a very efficient process, but it ignores completely what has happened upstream, in terms of how the electricity got to the battery in the first place.
I've already explained this at length with enough linked reading matter to keep you busy for weeks.
No-one is ignoring anything, and it's almost insulting to suggest that people who work in this field would overlook something so ridiculously obvious.
The upstream generation is completely integral to the lifetime calculations for carbon footprint, and of course it varies depending on what proportion of fossil fuel is used to generate electricity.
Suffice to say that today's mix of renewables vs fossil fuels in the UK results in at least a 50% reduction in carbon footprint for the average new 2022 EV compared to the average new 2022 ICE.
If net zero or near that is achieved by 2050, then the reduction in footprint could be as high ad 80% compared to today.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff