RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
911hope said:
otolith said:
I do. I pay a lot of tax based on my income to fund those things. Why should my mode of transportation have any effect on how much I should contribute?
So you would prefer to pay more income tax?911hope said:
Torque is a red herring. Braking forces are much higher than acceleration forces.
Regenerative braking is generally more distributed so less harmful. Less brake dust also.
The only braking energy of relevance to road wear is what the tyre generates at the contact point, the higher the mass, the more energy put into the contact point.Regenerative braking is generally more distributed so less harmful. Less brake dust also.
Modern braking systems share that load around the 4 tyres to provide peak deceleration, ICE or EV is irrelevant.
The limit of that load is determined by the tyre capability, typical peak deceleration on a good road tyre is 1.2G.
500TORQUES said:
The limit of that load is determined by the tyre capability, typical peak deceleration on a good road tyre is 1.2G.
Careful, in a minute you will be claiming that everyone brakes at 1.2 G everywhere from 1100 mph and that would require batteries to be recharged instantly from 0 to 100%.We've already been down that rabbit hole this month.
Strangely Brown said:
Nomme de Plum said:
I would suggest that maybe the tax be based on pollution produced so if a driver runs a big old diesel or petrol V8/12 they would pay significantly more than someone in a small ICE.
They already do. It's called fuel duty.SpeckledJim said:
Strangely Brown said:
Nomme de Plum said:
I would suggest that maybe the tax be based on pollution produced so if a driver runs a big old diesel or petrol V8/12 they would pay significantly more than someone in a small ICE.
They already do. It's called fuel duty.
Strangely Brown said:
Nomme de Plum said:
I would suggest that maybe the tax be based on pollution produced so if a driver runs a big old diesel or petrol V8/12 they would pay significantly more than someone in a small ICE.
They already do. It's called fuel duty.starsky67 said:
500TORQUES said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Because as a consumer we all have an obligation to pay for the services we receive. The provision and running of roads is a service.
Why are EV drivers not paying as much as ICE drivers and why are they receiving tax benefits, if that is the case?The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
Pan Pan Pan said:
starsky67 said:
500TORQUES said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Because as a consumer we all have an obligation to pay for the services we receive. The provision and running of roads is a service.
Why are EV drivers not paying as much as ICE drivers and why are they receiving tax benefits, if that is the case?The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Since only 43% of UK electricity comes from renewables most EVs use energy provided by fossil fuels and nuclear. therefore they cannot be described as being environmentally friendly.
The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
One could argue that all power production and waste disposal should be kept local as we expect those services. The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Since only 43% of UK electricity comes from renewables most EVs use energy provided by fossil fuels and nuclear. therefore they cannot be described as being environmentally friendly.
The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
All things are relative. More friendly is better than not so friendly.The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
To describe this properly, some numbers are needed.
Have you accounted for the relative efficiency of a power station and an ICE?
In responding, you can include the distribution losses (electricity and petrol) and the relative efficiency of EVs and ICE cars.
Do this and you may be approaching an analysis of the situation.
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Since only 43% of UK electricity comes from renewables most EVs use energy provided by fossil fuels and nuclear. therefore they cannot be described as being environmentally friendly.
The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
All things are relative. More friendly is better than not so friendly.The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
To describe this properly, some numbers are needed.
Have you accounted for the relative efficiency of a power station and an ICE?
In responding, you can include the distribution losses (electricity and petrol) and the relative efficiency of EVs and ICE cars.
Do this and you may be approaching an analysis of the situation.
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Since only 43% of UK electricity comes from renewables most EVs use energy provided by fossil fuels and nuclear. therefore they cannot be described as being environmentally friendly.
The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
All things are relative. More friendly is better than not so friendly.The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
To describe this properly, some numbers are needed.
Have you accounted for the relative efficiency of a power station and an ICE?
In responding, you can include the distribution losses (electricity and petrol) and the relative efficiency of EVs and ICE cars.
Do this and you may be approaching an analysis of the situation.
Strangely Brown said:
After about 70k miles, perhaps. Until then they are more polluting overall. I accept that they may be better for air quality in a dense urban environment.
It's less than 20k mile in the UK.https://inews.co.uk/news/electric-cars-are-less-gr...
There was a UK highways engineer on a thread a while back who commented that (hopefully I paraphrase correctly) cars are all but irrelevant to road wear compared to HGV's and the majority of damage is caused by gearchanges and is commonly seen just after junctions where everyone changes from 1st to 2nd in roughly the same area, which I guess makes sense. As an aside I've just rolled past 10,000 miles in my ultra lardy Taycan and to my great surprise the super grippy Michelins are probably only half done, making it one of the gentlest wearing performance cars I've ever run.
SpeckledJim said:
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Since only 43% of UK electricity comes from renewables most EVs use energy provided by fossil fuels and nuclear. therefore they cannot be described as being environmentally friendly.
The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
All things are relative. More friendly is better than not so friendly.The only reliable non CO2 producing electricity comes from nuclear. I suspect that relatively few would be happy with a new nuclear power station being built next to where they live.
To describe this properly, some numbers are needed.
Have you accounted for the relative efficiency of a power station and an ICE?
In responding, you can include the distribution losses (electricity and petrol) and the relative efficiency of EVs and ICE cars.
Do this and you may be approaching an analysis of the situation.
https://youtu.be/CYwptIkKEbE
TheBinarySheep said:
Strangely Brown said:
After about 70k miles, perhaps. Until then they are more polluting overall. I accept that they may be better for air quality in a dense urban environment.
It's less than 20k mile in the UK.https://inews.co.uk/news/electric-cars-are-less-gr...
And that's with the 'dirtiest' battery possible.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/how-...
A Golf-sized car in the UK is already breaking-even at well under 20,000 miles, as you've said.
More importantly, the lifetime footprint is nearly 4 times lower.
Do the same calculation in 2030 and the same car breaks-even at 10,000 miles and is approaching 5 times lower on lifetime footprint.
It's become a joke how out of date the 70,000 mile thing is now.
Pepperpots said:
I wonder what numbers would appear if the mileage was adjusted to take into account fossils fuels burnt to provide the electricity to power the EVs.
Maybe you have to use only 43% of the mileage as clean green mileage and the rest as an equivalent ice...
A gas powered turbine for electrical generation runs at around 60% efficiency, and with catalytic converters (which are unlikely to be removed unlike an ICE car) these emissions can be reduced to almost nothing.Maybe you have to use only 43% of the mileage as clean green mileage and the rest as an equivalent ice...
"The first-of-a-kind installation on GE TM2500 gas turbines reduced NOx emissions by more than 90% to 2.5 ppm and reduced CO emissions to 4 ppm"
https://www.powermag.com/ge-releases-new-option-to...
Yes it still has some emissions, but nowhere near as much as an ICE engine.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff