RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed

[SpeckledJim]

ITP said:

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.

The EV transition needs manufacturers, products, legislators, customers, supporting infrastructure to all step forward at the same time, and that's impossible to prompt without the ban to focus minds and create impetus.

These threads show us what the public are like.

60% ignorant.
70% knee-jerk indignant.
80% hunch-powered.
90% fearful of change.

It couldn't possibly be left to them to recognise the benefit of silently whooshing around to power the whole thing.

[NomduJour]

I like cars, I don’t much want to silently whoosh around.

Heat source pumps are more efficient than open fires, but you don’t get people sitting around a radiator.

[SpeckledJim]

NomduJour said:

I like cars, I don’t much want to silently whoosh around.

Heat source pumps are more efficient than open fires, but you don’t get people sitting around a radiator.

Indeed. I agree that a huge amounts of waste heat is dead exciting.

But sadly, reality bites.

[NomduJour]

SpeckledJim said:

But sadly, reality bites.

If that’s the attitude, then I’d suggest a concerted effort to reduce population growth, rather pretending that forcing people into expensive vehicles that don’t necessarily fit their needs is going to change anything.

[SpeckledJim]

NomduJour said:

SpeckledJim said:

But sadly, reality bites.

If that’s the attitude, then I’d suggest a concerted effort to reduce population growth, rather pretending that forcing people into expensive vehicles that don’t necessarily fit their needs is going to change anything.

Right. That's a more reasonable, less dramatic solution, is it?

I want an Audi A4, so you can't have children.

[911hope]

NomduJour said:

If that’s the attitude, then I’d suggest a concerted effort to reduce population growth, rather pretending that forcing people into expensive vehicles that don’t necessarily fit their needs is going to change anything.

How are you proposing to accomplish that plan?

Are you sure you want to stop there?

[NomduJour]

What quantifiable benefits are you expecting by forcing people into EVs before the technology and infrastructure are ready? (Please don’t say less pollution, because getting rid of ICE cars tomorrow would barely cause a blip).

[SpeckledJim]

NomduJour said:

What quantifiable benefits are you expecting by forcing people into EVs before the technology and infrastructure are ready? (Please don’t say less pollution, because getting rid of ICE cars tomorrow would barely cause a blip).

Literally millions of us can happily use an EV as-of today. and the benefits have been covered extensively in this thread.

You don't want one. That's absolutely fine. You don't have to have one. Huge relief for you, I'm sure.

[NomduJour]

911hope said:

How are you proposing to accomplish that plan?

Are you sure you want to stop there?

I’m not a politician, I’m not forcing anything to be “accomplished”.
Do you believe current levels of world population growth are sustainable?
What do you believe banning internal combustion engines will achieve? Are you sure you want to stop there?

[otolith]

We have a bit of breathing room on population, because the populations which are high per capita emitters are not the ones with high levels of growth. We are going to have to deal with the developing world wanting more energy, and unless someone is planning a bit of genocide we're going to have to deal with it by helping them to do it in a lower carbon way.

[NomduJour]

SpeckledJim said:

Literally millions of us can happily use an EV as-of today. and the benefits have been covered extensively in this thread.

You don't want one. That's absolutely fine. You don't have to have one. Huge relief for you, I'm sure.

Yes, I could use an EV in town - if I wanted to buy an additional car. Otherwise there isn’t currently one that fits my requirements - hopefully there will have been huge advances in battery technology and infrastructure by the time governments are taxing internal combustion out of existence, or the project will fail. Still won’t get excited by electric cars, though.

[otolith]

NomduJour said:

What quantifiable benefits are you expecting by forcing people into EVs before the technology and infrastructure are ready? (Please don’t say less pollution, because getting rid of ICE cars tomorrow would barely cause a blip).

We aren't forcing anyone into EVs for another 12 years, and even then we are only forcing those who insist on buying a brand new car. What makes you think that the technology and infrastructure won't be ready by then?

I don't believe that the plan is to phase out cars and call the job done, that's one low hanging fruit on a tree full of them.

[otolith]

NomduJour said:

Yes, I could use an EV in town - if I wanted to buy an additional car. Otherwise there isn’t currently one that fits my requirements - hopefully there will have been huge advances in battery technology and infrastructure by the time governments are taxing internal combustion out of existence, or the project will fail.

The project won't fail if a minority of people have to change their transport habits as a result. After all, it's been 20 years since it was possible to fly London-New York in 3 hours. Humans are flexible when they have to be.

[NomduJour]

otolith said:

We aren't forcing anyone into EVs for another 12 years, and even then we are only forcing those who insist on buying a brand new car. What makes you think that the technology and infrastructure won't be ready by then?

I think you’re putting more faith in governments than EV engineers.

[otolith]

NomduJour said:

I think you’re putting more faith in governments than EV engineers.

What is it that you think will be the limiting factor?

[Nomme de Plum]

NomduJour said:

I like cars, I don’t much want to silently whoosh around.

Heat source pumps are more efficient than open fires, but you don’t get people sitting around a radiator.

I have underfloor heating, no radiators or open fire. The comfort level is way better than any draughty, dirty and smelly and open fire. The smog that was produced by such open fires caused major health issues in cities post war.

Maybe your neighbours would prefer to dry clothes outside naturally but not have them covered in soot from your chimney.

Possibly you like a noisy car. Many people would prefer not to have such noise imposed on them.

[NomduJour]

otolith said:

NomduJour said:

I think you’re putting more faith in governments than EV engineers.

What is it that you think will be the limiting factor?

For a lot of people who can afford to swap, it will just mean installing or finding chargers; for others it’s going to mean a pretty major change in how they use their cars and run their lives. For anyone who, for whatever reasons of use or location, needs to continue with an ICE vehicle, they are inevitably going to be crucified by the government before infrastructure or battery technology bridges the gap.

[Soupdragon65]

Nomme de Plum said:

NomduJour said:

I like cars, I don’t much want to silently whoosh around.

Heat source pumps are more efficient than open fires, but you don’t get people sitting around a radiator.

I have underfloor heating, no radiators or open fire. The comfort level is way better than any draughty, dirty and smelly and open fire. The smog that was produced by such open fires caused major health issues in cities post war.

Maybe your neighbours would prefer to dry clothes outside naturally but not have them covered in soot from your chimney.

Possibly you like a noisy car. Many people would prefer not to have such noise imposed on them.

Having experienced the joys of quiet, stink less motoring I have to agree.

There’s a place for full on sensory overload on track, but on the public road, quiet is better, for everybody.

Do you drive around with your windows down and the stereo in full blast as well?

Edited by Soupdragon65 on Wednesday 22 March 13:19

[NomduJour]

Nomme de Plum said:

I have underfloor heating, no radiators or open fire. The comfort level is way better than any draughty, dirty and smelly and open fire. The smog that was produced by such open fires caused major health issues in cities post war.

Maybe your neighbours would prefer to dry clothes outside naturally but not have them covered in soot from your chimney.

Possibly you like a noisy car. Many people would prefer not to have such noise imposed on them.

[Nomme de Plum]

NomduJour said:

I’m not a politician, I’m not forcing anything to be “accomplished”.
Do you believe current levels of world population growth are sustainable?
What do you believe banning internal combustion engines will achieve? Are you sure you want to stop there?

Please remind us what is the rate of world population growth?

Have you looked at the work of the late Hans Rosling? Several decades ago he was projecting that the global population would max out at 11bn. In fact latest projections are around 10.3bn.

Even China has a birth rate that is seeing a population decrease of circa -2% per annum. Most western and developed nations are the similar.

We have an ageing population issue and that ratio is getting seriously unsustainable.

Back on topic ICEs generate emissions that cause actual and permanent harm to all exposed to it and particular the impact on the developing brains of children is now evidenced as being highly deleterious. I trust you consider that much like smoking bans this knowledge has to be acted upon.