RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So you don’t have your own numbers, but you know you don’t like my numbers. So what informs your opinion?When someone says EVs are more efficient than ICE, you think ‘hmm, complex subject, I bet they aren’t’ and leave it at that.
Yet they demonstrably are dramatically more efficient.
Soupdragon65 said:
GT9 said:
Soupdragon65 said:
There’s no e fuel option in the configurator that I can see?
Set the year to 2030.It still doesn’t explain where the CO2 is going to come from at the scale required
GT9 said:
Yes, a red herring feature that ignores the obvious lack of infrastructure.
Around 14% of exhaust gas from a combustion process is CO2 versus 0.04% in the atmosphere. In other words you need to process around 300 times as much atmospheric air by volume to achieve the same carbon capture as from industrial waste gases.That’s why large scale atmospheric carbon capture is a speculative pipe dream.
Remember the planetary water harvesting machines in the sci-fi movie ‘Oblivion’? You’d need machines on that scale at least!
In search of the elusive killer blow to fell them in one punch, the criticism towards EVs is once again focussing on seriously dodgy maths and science to try to pretend that somehow ICEs are either more efficient or nearly as efficient or that an EV's lifetime carbon footprint is not many times better than an equivalent ICE.
Talk about barking up the wrong tree.
If anything, the gap between the two technologies is going to open up even further as EVs gradually reduce in mass, slipperiness and frontal area.
If the discussion centred around the lack of charging infrastructure, winter range, lack of driving feel or challenges with sufficient mineral resources, then at least there would be some substance to the claimed shortcomings.
Talk about barking up the wrong tree.
If anything, the gap between the two technologies is going to open up even further as EVs gradually reduce in mass, slipperiness and frontal area.
If the discussion centred around the lack of charging infrastructure, winter range, lack of driving feel or challenges with sufficient mineral resources, then at least there would be some substance to the claimed shortcomings.
Soupdragon65 said:
There’s no e fuel option in the configurator that I can see?
Also there’s the small issue that the authors stare quite clearly that efuel production is not scalable to supply even a small proportion of the car fleet so it’s moot. And lastly their analysis assumes the CO2 required to produce the efuel is freely available. At the scale required it isn’t ( which is smother way of stating the previous point) and once you start looking at the energy requirements and environmental impact if direct carbon capture the whole thing breaks down.
There’s also the inconvenient fact that efuels (in fact all hydrocarbon fuels) are so energy inefficient, around 4-5 times worse than BEV.
If you can make enough efuel from renewable energy to 100% power the car fleet you would need up to 5x the amount of renewable electricity than if you just powered them directly as EVs.
So why not produce 80% of that amount of efuel and just bury it, then with the remaining 20% of electricity you could still power the whole fleet of EVs
Synthetic fuels at consumer scale are just snake oil.
So nice try (where did you get that graph?) but fail.
Those are the key issues. Plus, the carbon for an efuel is taken from industry, typically fossil fuel derived!!Also there’s the small issue that the authors stare quite clearly that efuel production is not scalable to supply even a small proportion of the car fleet so it’s moot. And lastly their analysis assumes the CO2 required to produce the efuel is freely available. At the scale required it isn’t ( which is smother way of stating the previous point) and once you start looking at the energy requirements and environmental impact if direct carbon capture the whole thing breaks down.
There’s also the inconvenient fact that efuels (in fact all hydrocarbon fuels) are so energy inefficient, around 4-5 times worse than BEV.
If you can make enough efuel from renewable energy to 100% power the car fleet you would need up to 5x the amount of renewable electricity than if you just powered them directly as EVs.
So why not produce 80% of that amount of efuel and just bury it, then with the remaining 20% of electricity you could still power the whole fleet of EVs
Synthetic fuels at consumer scale are just snake oil.
So nice try (where did you get that graph?) but fail.
Edited by Soupdragon65 on Wednesday 22 March 06:09
The true value of efuel lies in viable sequestering. At present various industries are trying to claim carbon credits for pumping CO2 into depleted oil reservoirs to force out the last of the fossil fuels. That CO2 does then leak back out as you can never seal off a reservoir once tapped. All well capping does is seal the inside of the well while gases remain fresh to leak via the outside path and fissures.
What eFuels, ie methanol made from renewable electricity using industrial carbon emissions, truly is is a viable step and path to sequester fossil fuel carbon as opposed to releasing that carbon back out to the atmosphere during one big tax credit scam.
Soupdragon65 said:
GT9 said:
Soupdragon65 said:
There’s no e fuel option in the configurator that I can see?
Set the year to 2030.It still doesn’t explain where the CO2 is going to come from at the scale required
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The only numbers of yours I questioned was the 4miles per kWh? I specifically didn’t question your other figures.But the 4 kWh I did question is based on lots of independent motoring publications testing the REAL WORLD range of EV’s, currently available, I have read. They are easy to find. I also said some EV’s can average this figure, but currently very few. Yours appears to be one of them for your specific commute.
And to the poster who suggests I am some denier of man made carbon emissions, I also never said anything about that, but I guess this is the standard knee jerk attempted put down to anyone that even slightly questions any claims that EV’s aren’t perfect and all ICE is evil. That has always been the way and will continue to be so I guess.
The reality is I have no problem with EV’s, for lots of people they are great, albeit currently far too expensive with most sales only propped up by taxpayer handouts in the form of low BIK.
What I object to is the banning of ICE. If EV’s are so good, then the vast majority of the public who just want transport will surely buy them anyway, without the need to ban anything?
Clearly this means that they are actually not good enough yet for the general public, based on the current combination of price, range and infrastructure for the bulk of the population, without them being handed huge tax breaks, via salary sacrifice etc.
ITP said:
What I object to is the banning of ICE. If EV’s are so good, then the vast majority of the public who just want transport will surely buy them anyway, without the need to ban anything?
Plenty of things have been banned for the betterment of society.ICEs will continue to be chosen by people who will apply dodgy maths or reasoning, exactly as witnessed on every one of these threads.
No matter how much 'education' you can offer about energy sources/emissions, etc., some people still won't understand it, exactly as witnessed on every one of these threads
And for about the seventeenth time, unless you can increase the number of NEW EVs on the road, there will never be enough USED ones to address the affordability issue.
If new car buyers are choosing ICE over EV due to incorrect reasoning or assumptions, and thus slowing the rate at which USED EVs come to market, then banning the ICEs is the next logical step. It's not hard.
SpeckledJim said:
So you don’t have your own numbers, but you know you don’t like my numbers. So what informs your opinion?
When someone says EVs are more efficient than ICE, you think ‘hmm, complex subject, I bet they aren’t’ and leave it at that.
Yet they demonstrably are dramatically more efficient.
You have hit upon the process that the majority of the population consider as reasoned thought.When someone says EVs are more efficient than ICE, you think ‘hmm, complex subject, I bet they aren’t’ and leave it at that.
Yet they demonstrably are dramatically more efficient.
The ban is only a block on new sales in 2035. Sometimes I wonder if people are thinking that tens of millions of existing ICE will be banned?
What we can also see is the rapidly falling cost of EVs over the last 5 years that has meant a raft of non premium offerings from the like of the discount Asian brands and companies such as Ford expanding their offerings.
I suspect that in the U.K. as we approach 2035 any ban will not actually transpire to be necessary as base EVs and used EVs will be undercutting new comparable ICE and almost everyone will want an EV and just adapt their lifestyle to fit.
For those of us who want to keep an ICE after 2035 we have a decade to find that car and plan how to look after it instead of just consuming it for three years and getting another then another.
The competitive market has to be forced before then and the way that we are doing it nationally is absolutely correct. It is those who can afford it the most easily who are being incentivised to create the free market that will come unlike in markets such as China where it is less progressive and the poor are being forced. In the U.K. it is being done in a voluntary manner and that is right.
Where people are conflating the sensible national policy with local, regional anti car policies these two aspects should be kept apart and viewed separately. Primarily because there are provincial governments who are absolutely targeting the poorer car users and wanting them out of any kind of car and onto transport more appropriate for peasantry. Some of the actions have merit but some are oppressive extremism showing through and ought to be challenged.
What we can also see is the rapidly falling cost of EVs over the last 5 years that has meant a raft of non premium offerings from the like of the discount Asian brands and companies such as Ford expanding their offerings.
I suspect that in the U.K. as we approach 2035 any ban will not actually transpire to be necessary as base EVs and used EVs will be undercutting new comparable ICE and almost everyone will want an EV and just adapt their lifestyle to fit.
For those of us who want to keep an ICE after 2035 we have a decade to find that car and plan how to look after it instead of just consuming it for three years and getting another then another.
The competitive market has to be forced before then and the way that we are doing it nationally is absolutely correct. It is those who can afford it the most easily who are being incentivised to create the free market that will come unlike in markets such as China where it is less progressive and the poor are being forced. In the U.K. it is being done in a voluntary manner and that is right.
Where people are conflating the sensible national policy with local, regional anti car policies these two aspects should be kept apart and viewed separately. Primarily because there are provincial governments who are absolutely targeting the poorer car users and wanting them out of any kind of car and onto transport more appropriate for peasantry. Some of the actions have merit but some are oppressive extremism showing through and ought to be challenged.
GT9 said:
ITP said:
What I object to is the banning of ICE. If EV’s are so good, then the vast majority of the public who just want transport will surely buy them anyway, without the need to ban anything?
Plenty of things have been banned for the betterment of society.ICEs will continue to be chosen by people who will apply dodgy maths or reasoning, exactly as witnessed on every one of these threads.
No matter how much 'education' you can offer about energy sources/emissions, etc., some people still won't understand it, exactly as witnessed on every one of these threads
And for about the seventeenth time, unless you can increase the number of NEW EVs on the road, there will never be enough USED ones to address the affordability issue.
If new car buyers are choosing ICE over EV due to incorrect reasoning or assumptions, and thus slowing the rate at which USED EVs come to market, then banning the ICEs is the next logical step. It's not hard.
I wouldn’t choose an ICE due to ‘dodgy maths’ or poor ‘education’ as you say, in the style of the I’m right , you’re wrong superior way, I’d choose one because maybe, just maybe, it’s what I prefer, even if it cost more to run. Of course I know it costs less, at home, to ‘fill’ an EV than an ICE car. I know my 4.7 V8 Maserati costs more to run than the chr hybrid my wife is using by an large margin, it’s a choice I’ve made. It’s not dodgy maths or bad education.
And like I already said, if the cost of EV’s reduces and the range gets better the bulk of the public will buy them anyway, I’ve absolutely no issue with that.
With regard to getting more EV’s sold to feed the used market, the big selling EV’s currently seem to be teslas and premium German stuff, due to the BIK. Does the average joe want to buy a 3-5 year old second hand premium ev that will be old tech in 5 years? Not sure about that. I’d say they’d rather a 20-30k new one with the latest tech. Apart from the MG that just creeps in to that price range (I’m talking family cars here, not small hatchbacks) there currently little around.
So I’d say the ‘reason buyers are choosing ICE over EV’ is because they are still too expensive and the range and infrastructure is not suitable for large sections of society. Not ‘incorrect reasoning or assumptions’. I’d wager a lot of these people would love to be able to afford an EV, they just can’t.
911hope said:
SpeckledJim said:
So you don’t have your own numbers, but you know you don’t like my numbers. So what informs your opinion?
When someone says EVs are more efficient than ICE, you think ‘hmm, complex subject, I bet they aren’t’ and leave it at that.
Yet they demonstrably are dramatically more efficient.
You have hit upon the process that the majority of the population consider as reasoned thought.When someone says EVs are more efficient than ICE, you think ‘hmm, complex subject, I bet they aren’t’ and leave it at that.
Yet they demonstrably are dramatically more efficient.
ITP said:
So I’d say the ‘reason buyers are choosing ICE over EV’ is because they are still too expensive and the range and infrastructure is not suitable for large sections of society. Not ‘incorrect reasoning or assumptions’. I’d wager a lot of these people would love to be able to afford an EV, they just can’t.
Actually I think you missed the point.The reason the majority of buyers aren't choosing EVs is because the used car buying pool is 4 times the size of the new car buying pool.
Nobody makes second hand cars, other than new buyers.
Like I said, it's not hard.
GT9 said:
ICEs will continue to be chosen by people who will apply dodgy maths or reasoning, exactly as witnessed on every one of these threads.
...or those of us who find EVs to be dull-as-dishwater to drive, and who consider a few thousand miles a year in a classic car to be a minor environmental sin compared to:-- importing avocados* from South America for breakfast every day
- changing your phone (or TV/car/tablet/200-other-electronic devices) every year or two because you have to have the latest kit. Ditto buying tons of plastic Chinese crap.
- taking the family on long-haul holidays or cruises every year
- being a politician and ignoring the environmental impacts of shipping, aviation, industry, over-fishing, over-farming, deforestation, fossil-fuel power generation and generally anything which might upset big-corp sponsors or have a long-term payback.
Words fail me to describe how angry I am at the majority of politicians and influential people all over the world who pay lip-service to both global warming and other environmental concerns then use greenwash or just plain sleight-of-hand to ignore it all while raking the profits in.
...all the while telling US that we need to change OUR behaviours. There is not one single thing I can do** which will be any more than pissing into the ocean compared to the ongoing large-scale pollution and devastation to the ecosphere that continues unabated by big businesses and governments. And I will not hair-shirt myself by sacrificing my main hobby to pretend I'm saving a planet which is clearly f
king doomed because we're essentially a global gerontocracy and those at the top will be dead before the consequences of their sociopathic actions are felt by the rest of us./rant
* Other long-haul foodstuffs are available.
** Except protest...but even that feels futile.
otolith said:
But they're not mandating replacing classics with EVs, they're mandating new cars, in the future.
That’s true. It’s the way forward for people who have no interest in EV’s. We’ll see what happens though with the proliferation of cameras that can ‘potentially’ be used to punitively price you out of actually driving it a few thousand miles a year.
ITP said:
And to the poster who suggests I am some denier of man made carbon emissions, I also never said anything about that, but I guess this is the standard knee jerk attempted put down to anyone that even slightly questions any claims that EV’s aren’t perfect and all ICE is evil. That has always been the way and will continue to be so I guess.
What's your answer then? Are you a climate change skeptic? It's not a knee jerk response from me, it's a judgment based on the language you're using. I'm not saying EVs are perfect and nor is ICE 'evil'.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff