RE: UK (finally) registers millionth electric vehicle
Discussion
irc said:
Nomme de Plum said:
So no you have no qualified person to advise you
Didn't know we needed to employ experts to comment on a forum. In part It's what makes PH entertaining.
irc said:
Evanivitch said:
If you're buying then tax breaks are few and far between. Private buyers don't get any perks at this time. Hence the suggestion to cute the rate of VAT.
Except very little tax on their fuel compared to ICE cars. I'd call that a pretty big perk.Nomme de Plum said:
irc said:
Nomme de Plum said:
So no you have no qualified person to advise you
Didn't know we needed to employ experts to comment on a forum. In part It's what makes PH entertaining.
Better to be ignorant than smug, self satisfied and tiresome.
Gordon Hill said:
So everybody who doesn't agree with you is ignorant? Interesting, and every post and opinion has to be justified by data and charts to meet with your approval?
Better to be ignorant than smug, self satisfied and tiresome.
Well he has a point, when someone obviously has no other consideration except cheap transport.Better to be ignorant than smug, self satisfied and tiresome.
I like cars but am under no illusion that our cities would be better without the constant chuff of diesel and petrol fumes. Tyres are being looked at. EVs contribute almost no brake particulates, so are most of the way there (brake dust is worse than tyres AFAIK).
Of course you're free to think/do what you like but there not much wrong with pointing out that we'd be better off without fossil fuels.
Gordon Hill said:
Nomme de Plum said:
irc said:
Nomme de Plum said:
So no you have no qualified person to advise you
Didn't know we needed to employ experts to comment on a forum. In part It's what makes PH entertaining.
Better to be ignorant than smug, self satisfied and tiresome.
I prefer to make decisions based on information and if it is outside my expertise I'll find someone for guidance to help understand what may be found on the internet. It was part the education process for our undergrad and grad trainees for fairly obvious reasons.
If others choose another route so be it but generally it tends not to work well in the real world.
Nomme de Plum said:
Of course not. Every one is free to go through life being ignorant on a certain topic because they think they know better than real experts and do a bit of googling.
In part It's what makes PH entertaining.
My my. Isn't your brain big!In part It's what makes PH entertaining.
In the big picture the effects of air quality are drowned out by other factors. I live in an area where the life expectancy is 15 years higher than a neighbouring area. In my area there is high vehicle ownership and traffic levels. In the neighbouring area much lower car ownership is perhaps balanced out by more dense housing. I would guess air pollution levels are similar.
Other factors like drugs, alcohol abuse, smoking, diet and low exercise levels are probably to blame. I am willing to guess that if all ICE cars were removed from the roads the life expectancy differences would remain. It isn't the big killer.
Outside congested city centres I think the trade off of limited health minuses is worth the benefits of cheap transport. You may differ.
https://scottishleftreview.scot/scotlands-divided-...
Zero Fuchs said:
Gordon Hill said:
So everybody who doesn't agree with you is ignorant? Interesting, and every post and opinion has to be justified by data and charts to meet with your approval?
Better to be ignorant than smug, self satisfied and tiresome.
Well he has a point, when someone obviously has no other consideration except cheap transport.Better to be ignorant than smug, self satisfied and tiresome.
I like cars but am under no illusion that our cities would be better without the constant chuff of diesel and petrol fumes. Tyres are being looked at. EVs contribute almost no brake particulates, so are most of the way there (brake dust is worse than tyres AFAIK).
Of course you're free to think/do what you like but there not much wrong with pointing out that we'd be better off without fossil fuels.
nunpuncher said:
You're posts are mostly very fact heavy and clearly well informed. Probably too well informed for some of us, myself included, to understand.
Can you confirm if what harry said in that video about all the private/passenger cars in the world accounting for around 6% of CO2 is true? If so, are we pissing in the wind in terms of making a noticeable difference? I mean, I don't agree with doing nothing but surely we could make a bigger impact by putting the same amount of effort in elsewhere. The old work smart not work hard.
Appreciate the compliment, I try to keep the level of detail somewhere between falling asleep and failing to get the message across.Can you confirm if what harry said in that video about all the private/passenger cars in the world accounting for around 6% of CO2 is true? If so, are we pissing in the wind in terms of making a noticeable difference? I mean, I don't agree with doing nothing but surely we could make a bigger impact by putting the same amount of effort in elsewhere. The old work smart not work hard.
I don't always succeed and will probably overdo it again here!
My background is in powertrains and their end-to-end energy pathways, not climate science.
Which is why I attempt to keep my posting about decarbonisation to the how and not the why.
6% for cars, sounds about right, maybe a little bit higher.
Transportation is a large contributor, but not as large as electricity and heat.
When looking at what sectors are the largest contributors, it's also necessary to consider their ease of decarbonisation.
Cars are one of the easiest sectors to decarbonise.
Generally speaking, by far the most effective form of decarbonisation is direct electrification from renewable sources.
If you can use a wind turbine feeding a battery or a heat pump or a motor, then the decarbonisation pathway is fairly obvious.
This is because the link between a pathway's end-to-end energy efficiency and the lifetime CO2 footprint is incredibly difficult or impossible to break.
When you can't make direct electrification work you move to the next level down and accept a lesser degree of decarbonisation.
The degree is measured in both the timeline and the new plateau reached.
So to answer your question simply, the same level of effort/expense elsewhere doesn't achieve as much.
For the UK, our decarbonisation target across all of society relies on a huge reduction in the total energy demands for cars so that other sectors (aviation, shipping, home heating, industrial) can settle for poorer outcomes.
This I where the energy efficiency of the EV powertrain comes into its own.
For example the same amount of green hydrogen that it would take to just decarbonise cars can cover multiple other sectors.
Sectors where batteries aren't viable, so you end up with a fail in all of the sectors including cars, if you don't use direct electrification.
The point is that if you want to succeed, you can't just isolate each sector and start pointing fingers at each other.
It needs to be a team effort, both globally and at a national level between the various sectors.
TLDR: cars are probably the lowest hanging fruit of all, and we need to use batteries so other sectors can also decarbonise with the best available technology that is viable for those sectors.
911Spanker said:
I think there are some good points in there, but as is often the case when Harry starts talking about electric cars, there’s a lot of factually inaccurate drivel you have to fight through to get there. I find it enormously frustrating the amount of car journalists that don’t bother to learn the basics when it comes to electric cars and just assume their knowledge of internal combustion cars will be sufficient. Harry didn’t even last 90 seconds before showing a screenshot in evidence of his point, that literally said the opposite of what he was saying for crying out loudGT9 said:
Appreciate the compliment, I try to keep the level of detail somewhere between falling asleep and failing to get the message across.
I don't always succeed and will probably overdo it again here!
My background is in powertrains and their end-to-end energy pathways, not climate science.
Which is why I attempt to keep my posting about decarbonisation to the how and not the why.
6% for cars, sounds about right, maybe a little bit higher.
Transportation is a large contributor, but not as large as electricity and heat.
When looking at what sectors are the largest contributors, it's also necessary to consider their ease of decarbonisation.
Cars are one of the easiest sectors to decarbonise.
Generally speaking, by far the most effective form of decarbonisation is direct electrification from renewable sources.
If you can use a wind turbine feeding a battery or a heat pump or a motor, then the decarbonisation pathway is fairly obvious.
This is because the link between a pathway's end-to-end energy efficiency and the lifetime CO2 footprint is incredibly difficult or impossible to break.
When you can't make direct electrification work you move to the next level down and accept a lesser degree of decarbonisation.
The degree is measured in both the timeline and the new plateau reached.
So to answer your question simply, the same level of effort/expense elsewhere doesn't achieve as much.
For the UK, our decarbonisation target across all of society relies on a huge reduction in the total energy demands for cars so that other sectors (aviation, shipping, home heating, industrial) can settle for poorer outcomes.
This I where the energy efficiency of the EV powertrain comes into its own.
For example the same amount of green hydrogen that it would take to just decarbonise cars can cover multiple other sectors.
Sectors where batteries aren't viable, so you end up with a fail in all of the sectors including cars, if you don't use direct electrification.
The point is that if you want to succeed, you can't just isolate each sector and start pointing fingers at each other.
It needs to be a team effort, both globally and at a national level between the various sectors.
TLDR: cars are probably the lowest hanging fruit of all, and we need to use batteries so other sectors can also decarbonise with the best available technology that is viable for those sectors.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'd probably need to read it several times to fully get it but I got the jist and appreciate the idiots guide at the end.I don't always succeed and will probably overdo it again here!
My background is in powertrains and their end-to-end energy pathways, not climate science.
Which is why I attempt to keep my posting about decarbonisation to the how and not the why.
6% for cars, sounds about right, maybe a little bit higher.
Transportation is a large contributor, but not as large as electricity and heat.
When looking at what sectors are the largest contributors, it's also necessary to consider their ease of decarbonisation.
Cars are one of the easiest sectors to decarbonise.
Generally speaking, by far the most effective form of decarbonisation is direct electrification from renewable sources.
If you can use a wind turbine feeding a battery or a heat pump or a motor, then the decarbonisation pathway is fairly obvious.
This is because the link between a pathway's end-to-end energy efficiency and the lifetime CO2 footprint is incredibly difficult or impossible to break.
When you can't make direct electrification work you move to the next level down and accept a lesser degree of decarbonisation.
The degree is measured in both the timeline and the new plateau reached.
So to answer your question simply, the same level of effort/expense elsewhere doesn't achieve as much.
For the UK, our decarbonisation target across all of society relies on a huge reduction in the total energy demands for cars so that other sectors (aviation, shipping, home heating, industrial) can settle for poorer outcomes.
This I where the energy efficiency of the EV powertrain comes into its own.
For example the same amount of green hydrogen that it would take to just decarbonise cars can cover multiple other sectors.
Sectors where batteries aren't viable, so you end up with a fail in all of the sectors including cars, if you don't use direct electrification.
The point is that if you want to succeed, you can't just isolate each sector and start pointing fingers at each other.
It needs to be a team effort, both globally and at a national level between the various sectors.
TLDR: cars are probably the lowest hanging fruit of all, and we need to use batteries so other sectors can also decarbonise with the best available technology that is viable for those sectors.
The reason I asked is because I live in a port town that sees at least 1, sometimes 2 cruise ships coming in every week during the summer. I know these companies have CO2 targets but it seems like a token gesture when lets be honest, the whole existence of the cruise industry is unjustifiable today. This hit home (quite literally) even harder when I read a report last year stating Carnival Cruises alone had pumped out the same amount of CO2 as all the cars in Europe that year.
Oh dear , just had to check this wasn't NP&E , few of you weirdos need to cool off a tad . Anyhow , it's akin to the mid 90s when everyman and his wife desperate to buy a DERV because the taxman said so , how many of you fell for that trick back then ? Now like lambs to the slaughter EVs are the must have , how long before they're finally crapped out as a waist of time and energy ?
Stick with my 2 V8s thanks , cheap and bullet proof .
Stick with my 2 V8s thanks , cheap and bullet proof .
irc said:
Evanivitch said:
If you're buying then tax breaks are few and far between. Private buyers don't get any perks at this time. Hence the suggestion to cute the rate of VAT.
Except very little tax on their fuel compared to ICE cars. I'd call that a pretty big perk.irc said:
My my. Isn't your brain big!
In the big picture the effects of air quality are drowned out by other factors. I live in an area where the life expectancy is 15 years higher than a neighbouring area. In my area there is high vehicle ownership and traffic levels. In the neighbouring area much lower car ownership is perhaps balanced out by more dense housing. I would guess air pollution levels are similar.
Other factors like drugs, alcohol abuse, smoking, diet and low exercise levels are probably to blame. I am willing to guess that if all ICE cars were removed from the roads the life expectancy differences would remain. It isn't the big killer.
Outside congested city centres I think the trade off of limited health minuses is worth the benefits of cheap transport. You may differ.
https://scottishleftreview.scot/scotlands-divided-...
Who said anything about life expectancy. I said health impacts and in particular child brain development with the very obvious consequential knock ons. Feel free to read up on it. By your logic we would never have restricted smoking. In the big picture the effects of air quality are drowned out by other factors. I live in an area where the life expectancy is 15 years higher than a neighbouring area. In my area there is high vehicle ownership and traffic levels. In the neighbouring area much lower car ownership is perhaps balanced out by more dense housing. I would guess air pollution levels are similar.
Other factors like drugs, alcohol abuse, smoking, diet and low exercise levels are probably to blame. I am willing to guess that if all ICE cars were removed from the roads the life expectancy differences would remain. It isn't the big killer.
Outside congested city centres I think the trade off of limited health minuses is worth the benefits of cheap transport. You may differ.
https://scottishleftreview.scot/scotlands-divided-...
Yes of course there are many factors that impinge on our well-being but sensible people do not run their lives through whataboutism and fortunately our politicians are gennerally on board.
nunpuncher said:
This hit home (quite literally) even harder when I read a report last year stating Carnival Cruises alone had pumped out the same amount of CO2 as all the cars in Europe that year.
That immediately strikes me as incorrect.When you burn 1 ton of fuel you get 3 tons of CO2.
There is also another 1 ton of CO2 released during production of that fuel from crude.
The passenger car sector for the UK consumes about 20 million tons a year, producing 60 million tons directly plus 20 million tons for fuel production.
This is to drive about 240 billion miles.
The production of new cars for the UK market adds another 15-20 million tons, or about 10 tons per new car.
So UK cars alone produce up to 100 million tons a year, which I'm guessing is at least 10 times higher than a cruise ship company?
I'd say there is something amiss with what you read in that report.
Whilst we are here, the purpose of decarbonising the sector is to eliminate 80 million tons of tailpipe and fuel production footprint.
The 15-20 million tons for new car production will remain, and by the time we get to 2050, an EV's production footprint is expected to be similar to a 2020 ICE of equivalent size.
This is brought about by a combination of decarbonising the electricity consumption to produce the battery and recycling the battery minerals, a requirement that will be mandated by legislation.
For the usage phase, the energy primarily comes from offshore wind, and has negligible footprint.
One offshore wind turbine can keep a fleet of several thousand electric cars charged, resulting in a carbon footprint of just 1 g/km due to the lifetime carbon footprint of the turbine itself.
Note that by eliminating the entirety of the usage phase footprint for the car, it no longer matters how fast you drive that car to cover its annual distance.
Not only have we eliminated the need for speed limits to control a car's CO2 emissions, but the roadside NOx emissions are also removed entirely.
I'd like to hear from any car enthusiasts who consider that a bad thing.
GT9 said:
Note that by eliminating the entirety of the usage phase footprint for the car, it no longer matters how fast you drive that car to cover its annual distance.
Not only have we eliminated the need for speed limits to control a car's CO2 emissions, but the roadside NOx emissions are also removed entirely.
I'd like to hear from any car enthusiasts who consider that a bad thing.
What a great use of Smart motorways that would be. Allow full EVs 80mph limit whilst restricting petrols to 70mph and Diesels to 60mph (hybrids would be limited to the correspondingly ICE limit). Probably help a few on the fence start to transition. Not only have we eliminated the need for speed limits to control a car's CO2 emissions, but the roadside NOx emissions are also removed entirely.
I'd like to hear from any car enthusiasts who consider that a bad thing.
fttm canada said:
Oh dear , just had to check this wasn't NP&E , few of you weirdos need to cool off a tad . Anyhow , it's akin to the mid 90s when everyman and his wife desperate to buy a DERV because the taxman said so , how many of you fell for that trick back then ? Now like lambs to the slaughter EVs are the must have , how long before they're finally crapped out as a waist of time and energy ?
Stick with my 2 V8s thanks , cheap and bullet proof .
This worries me as well, and it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't some backtracking on EVs like there was with diesel in the future too. Stick with my 2 V8s thanks , cheap and bullet proof .
It all just boils down to trying to control the masses I reckon.
cerb4.5lee said:
fttm canada said:
Oh dear , just had to check this wasn't NP&E , few of you weirdos need to cool off a tad . Anyhow , it's akin to the mid 90s when everyman and his wife desperate to buy a DERV because the taxman said so , how many of you fell for that trick back then ? Now like lambs to the slaughter EVs are the must have , how long before they're finally crapped out as a waist of time and energy ?
Stick with my 2 V8s thanks , cheap and bullet proof .
This worries me as well, and it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't some backtracking on EVs like there was with diesel in the future too. Stick with my 2 V8s thanks , cheap and bullet proof .
It all just boils down to trying to control the masses I reckon
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff