RE: The best used electric cars to buy right now

RE: The best used electric cars to buy right now

Author
Discussion

DodgyGeezer

31,915 posts

170 months

Thursday
quotequote all
murphyaj 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..."

Nik Gnashers

703 posts

136 months

Thursday
quotequote all
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...
https://www.cse.org.uk/advice/advice-and-support/how-much-electricity-am-i-using

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.
The average daily usage of a car is about 20 miles. I'll be very generous to you, and assume your Nissan Leaf only has a range of 120 miles, to keep the maths simple. So that £6 charge lasts it 6 days. So a pound a day. Being generous again, lets assume your fridge freezer is only using electricity for just over a 3rd of the day, so costing 50 pence per day. That makes the car twice as expensive. Not 50 times.

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.....
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.

Charlie_1

536 posts

72 months

Thursday
quotequote all
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.
Lol that accurately reflects the EVboy mindset
Ditto for the quality of responses from the anti-EV brigade.
Anti EV ? show me where I said Im anti in fact Im certain I said if you want one knock yourself out, I reasonably pointed out that the belief that (in my opinion) they are better than ICE is somewhat mistaken , which many people took (sadly including yourself) as a signal / reason to shovel abuse in my direction , hmm mature , my main corncern with EVs now is that if I drove one people would think Im the same sort of D!ckhead as you lot

Edited by Charlie_1 on Thursday 4th August 15:33
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.
See thats the thing with with this post / debate, I get verbal acid poured over me & when I respond in kind im wrong (which be honest is the tone of your last post at the very least)

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 ?

Missy Charm

140 posts

8 months

Thursday
quotequote all
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.

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.

Maccmike8

583 posts

34 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Last 2 comments are bang on.


We all have to do something for our precious planet. With the current methods, going electric isnt it. Hopefully in time we can produce energy that is green.

Charlie_1

536 posts

72 months

Thursday
quotequote all
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.

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.
warms my heart I was beginning to think I was the only sane/intelligent on this forum

GT9

2,994 posts

152 months

Thursday
quotequote all
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.

bennytheball

32 posts

7 months

Thursday
quotequote all
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:

“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?

Twinair

229 posts

122 months

Thursday
quotequote all
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.

GT9

2,994 posts

152 months

Thursday
quotequote all
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?

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.

Charlie_1

536 posts

72 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Twinair said:
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.
Thanks if anything this debate has rather proved that for self claimed intelligent people the EVboys dont seem to be able to cope with a opinion different to theirs , amusing really


Edited by Charlie_1 on Thursday 4th August 22:14


Edited by Charlie_1 on Thursday 4th August 22:15

D4rez

444 posts

36 months

Thursday
quotequote all
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.
Surely we have to think about that. Of course. Damn, all those clever people missed that one.

So you’re telling me that drilling for oil, getting it to a refinery, turning it into liquid fuel, transporting it to petrol stations where it gets put into cars and converted to energy at max 20-30% efficiency is less efficient than transmitting power through the grid and using it in an electric car? At 10% transmission loss and then 80-90% conversion efficiency to power at the wheels?

P.S. both a fuel tank and a battery pack store energy and are integral to the vehicle. Both take an energy source externally, store it on board and then convert it to motion in the car. Fancy that…

ZX10R NIN

24,380 posts

105 months

Thursday
quotequote all
D4rez said:
Surely we have to think about that. Of course. Damn, all those clever people missed that one.

So you’re telling me that drilling for oil, getting it to a refinery, turning it into liquid fuel, transporting it to petrol stations where it gets put into cars and converted to energy at max 20-30% efficiency is less efficient than transmitting power through the grid and using it in an electric car? At 10% transmission loss and then 80-90% conversion efficiency to power at the wheels?

P.S. both a fuel tank and a battery pack store energy and are integral to the vehicle. Both take an energy source externally, store it on board and then convert it to motion in the car. Fancy that…
Both points are correct neither are particulary "green" but both have a place with neither being an out right winner.

Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.

I'm not against EV's but them being the planets saviour is a load of bs.

While people will come on here & say about what's going to happen in the future, what's happening right now is that EV's aren't green, they're better for street emissions of that there is no doubt but so is (again not that efficient to produce at the moment) hydrogen/hydrogen fuel cells/synthetic fuels..



GT9

2,994 posts

152 months

Thursday
quotequote all
ZX10R NIN said:
Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.
I would recommend reading the whole thread to get a more informed view on this particular point.

The Volvo study is specific to one car, I've already linked to a far more comprehensive and more recent study by Ricardo Engineering, specific to the UK, commissioned by the UK government.

Here it is again: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

This study also (correctly) compares lifetime footprint, NOT breakeven point.

Breakeven tells you when two line cross but does not tell you about the comparative totals over the entire life, which is what actually matters.

Then there is the question of timeline. The Volvo study was a snapshot in time, The Ricardo study looks at 2020, 2030 and 2050, showing how much the situation is likely to improve over time.

I would also point out that the same study that Volvo did was undertaken by other manufacturers as well, such a BMW and Mercedes, with better results for their EVs than Volvo reached.

D4rez

444 posts

36 months

ZX10R NIN said:
D4rez said:
Surely we have to think about that. Of course. Damn, all those clever people missed that one.

So you’re telling me that drilling for oil, getting it to a refinery, turning it into liquid fuel, transporting it to petrol stations where it gets put into cars and converted to energy at max 20-30% efficiency is less efficient than transmitting power through the grid and using it in an electric car? At 10% transmission loss and then 80-90% conversion efficiency to power at the wheels?

P.S. both a fuel tank and a battery pack store energy and are integral to the vehicle. Both take an energy source externally, store it on board and then convert it to motion in the car. Fancy that…
Both points are correct neither are particulary "green" but both have a place with neither being an out right winner.

Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.

I'm not against EV's but them being the planets saviour is a load of bs.

While people will come on here & say about what's going to happen in the future, what's happening right now is that EV's aren't green, they're better for street emissions of that there is no doubt but so is (again not that efficient to produce at the moment) hydrogen/hydrogen fuel cells/synthetic fuels..
That's not correct, as posted above - it's just one manufacturer. Other independent studies from universities and other OEMs have found they are 70% better than an equivalent ICE (Model 3 vs C220d for example is 68% better lifetime) today. I understand where you're coming from but it's not factually accurate - especially not the street emissions - hydrogen and particularly synthetic fuels are as bad as conventional fuel. No difference in exhaust content.

They are not planet savers on their own but across multiple countries commited to the switch and seen as part of all of the many, many other de-carbonisation activities happening right now, they are part of the solution

Drl22

624 posts

45 months

ZX10R NIN said:
Both points are correct neither are particulary "green" but both have a place with neither being an out right winner.

Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.

I'm not against EV's but them being the planets saviour is a load of bs.

While people will come on here & say about what's going to happen in the future, what's happening right now is that EV's aren't green, they're better for street emissions of that there is no doubt but so is (again not that efficient to produce at the moment) hydrogen/hydrogen fuel cells/synthetic fuels..
That last bit is the key in my opinion. If they are greener on the street then surely it means it makes localised air that we breathe cleaner and healthier, obviously not around the power stations pumping out the emissions to generate the extra power for charging but electric cars will make your average high street a safer place to breathe this is another important factor to consider.

Bryans69

181 posts

112 months

Drl22 said:
ZX10R NIN said:
Both points are correct neither are particulary "green" but both have a place with neither being an out right winner.

Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.

I'm not against EV's but them being the planets saviour is a load of bs.

While people will come on here & say about what's going to happen in the future, what's happening right now is that EV's aren't green, they're better for street emissions of that there is no doubt but so is (again not that efficient to produce at the moment) hydrogen/hydrogen fuel cells/synthetic fuels..
That last bit is the key in my opinion. If they are greener on the street then surely it means it makes localised air that we breathe cleaner and healthier, obviously not around the power stations pumping out the emissions to generate the extra power for charging but electric cars will make your average high street a safer place to breathe this is another important factor to consider.
Yes. That's a point I've been trying to make in several posts. EV's are better for the planet, but only a small contribution, and only with much wider adoption. But they do make a significant difference to the local environment

Charlie_1

536 posts

72 months

D4rez said:
That's not correct, as posted above - it's just one manufacturer. Other independent studies from universities and other OEMs have found they are 70% better than an equivalent ICE (Model 3 vs C220d for example is 68% better lifetime) today. I understand where you're coming from but it's not factually accurate - especially not the street emissions - hydrogen and particularly synthetic fuels are as bad as conventional fuel. No difference in exhaust content.

They are not planet savers on their own but across multiple countries commited to the switch and seen as part of all of the many, many other de-carbonisation activities happening right now, they are part of the solution
umm on Hydrogen from a US gov website , there are others , and you want me to accept your EV 'facts' lol

About half of the U.S. population lives in areas where air pollution levels are high enough to negatively impact public health and the environment. Emissions from gasoline and diesel vehicles—such as nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter—are a major source of this pollution. Hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles emit none of these harmful substances—only water (H2O) and warm air.



Edited by Charlie_1 on Friday 5th August 09:21

ajap1979

6,040 posts

167 months

bennytheball said:
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:

“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?
laugh Oh dear

Evanivitch

13,854 posts

102 months

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
False quote. Deliberate misinformation aka lies.

Nik Gnashers said:
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),
FGRP is widely used in industry. It's not the reason something catches fire.

Poor attempt at a lie.

Nik Gnashers said:
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.
Again, false information. There's plenty of opportunity to reuse old fibre glass. Yes, you won't return to the constituent parts, but through pyrolysis (increasingly used at industrial scale) you can extract gas, polymers and ash-like materials that can be combusted, reprocessed into polymers or used as bulking agents in construction.

So another lie.

Nik Gnashers said:
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.
Why assume the foundation is life limited?