Can Aston Martin Survive in the Electric Vehicle Era?

[NMNeil]

Jon39 said:

NMNeil said:

They are already planning a factory for Australia.
https://www.electrive.com/2023/01/19/recharge-indu...

I am only now learning a little about this subject.

Transportation must be a consideration, considering the weights involved.
Wonder if it is best to make batteries near the source of raw materials, or near the customers ?

Does Australia have the minerals needed?
Regarding EVs (storage has been mentioned, so perhaps EVs not relevant) think Holden and Ford have both closed in Australia.

Australia has the largest reserves of lithium in the world.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221110-how-au...
And about 20% of the worlds cobalt.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings...

[cardigankid]

pschlute said:

cardigankid said:

but is it really normal to pump £100m into an unproven start up?

No government money was "pumped" anywhere. It was a grant that was promised, subject to conditions being met. The conditions were not met so not a penny was paid.

This is how grants to start ups are usually made, and this case was no different.

Accepted. I suppose that it depends what the conditions were, and had the grant been paid, would the company still have been 'an unproven start up'? Of course, among all of the potential examples, where I daresay conditions were met, I missed the best example of all, DeLorean.

[Simpo Two]

cardigankid said:

f course, among all of the potential examples, where I daresay conditions were met, I missed the best example of all, DeLorean.

Rover was even better; IIRC two clever blokes made off with a vast amount of money and didn't even make a car...

From the 'Fred the Shred' School of Ethics.

[AstonV]

EV’s are evil.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/03/02/its-time-to-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-ford-f150-...

Edited by AstonV on Friday 3rd March 17:22

[dbs2000]

wow that top one is certainly entertaining. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/issues-insights/ - not exactly well rated for their sources.

I'm no fan of Elon but Investor day last week had a super interesting piece on renewables for everyone.

[anonymous-user]

AstonV said:

EV’s are evil.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/03/02/its-time-to-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-ford-f150-...

Edited by AstonV on Friday 3rd March 17:22

As always, if you really want to (dis)believe, someone will sell you some facts to support your view. The internet's a great resource for this.

In the meantime the vast majority of us will look at the consensus from reputable sources including the companies that have the biggest challenges from having to change to EV such as Volvo, Ricardo etc all of whom unequivocally state that EV's have a far lower lifetime environmental cost than ICE vehicles.

Luckily Governments work this way as well.

[Jon39]

Archie2050 said:

In the meantime the vast majority of us will look at the consensus from reputable sources including the companies that have the biggest challenges from having to change to EV such as Volvo, Ricardo etc all of whom unequivocally state that EV's have a far lower lifetime environmental cost than ICE vehicles.

I wondered if ways of continuous generation need to be changed, to achieve what you have outlined ?

Yesterday evening I happened to notice, that UK electricity generation was only 6% by renewables.
More than half the electricity was being produced by burning gas, some of which would have been shipped here from USA and the Middle East.

[anonymous-user]

Jon39 said:

Archie2050 said:

In the meantime the vast majority of us will look at the consensus from reputable sources including the companies that have the biggest challenges from having to change to EV such as Volvo, Ricardo etc all of whom unequivocally state that EV's have a far lower lifetime environmental cost than ICE vehicles.

I wondered if ways of continuous generation need to be changed, to achieve what you have outlined ?

Yesterday evening I happened to notice, that UK electricity generation was only 6% by renewables.
More than half the electricity was being produced by burning gas, some of which would have been shipped here from USA and the Middle East.

It's all to do with the averages. In any case burning gas in a modern power station is a heck of a lot more efficient than burning petrol or diesel in a car. Every analysis using the UK or EU grid mix has shown EV's to be less carbon polluting than ICE vehicles, and its improving every year as the proportion of renewables rises.

[TeddS]

Archie2050 said:

Jon39 said:

Archie2050 said:

In the meantime the vast majority of us will look at the consensus from reputable sources including the companies that have the biggest challenges from having to change to EV such as Volvo, Ricardo etc all of whom unequivocally state that EV's have a far lower lifetime environmental cost than ICE vehicles.

I wondered if ways of continuous generation need to be changed, to achieve what you have outlined ?

Yesterday evening I happened to notice, that UK electricity generation was only 6% by renewables.
More than half the electricity was being produced by burning gas, some of which would have been shipped here from USA and the Middle East.

It's all to do with the averages. In any case burning gas in a modern power station is a heck of a lot more efficient than burning petrol or diesel in a car. Every analysis using the UK or EU grid mix has shown EV's to be less carbon polluting than ICE vehicles, and its improving every year as the proportion of renewables rises.

I call "bunk!" EV's cause much more pollution to manufacture. Unless the electricity is 100% renewable or nuclear, most EV's will never reach net neutral emissions before they are scrapped. (Which brings a whole new set of problems...) EV's are a political proposition, having nothing to do with long term environmental issues. Simply follow the money!

[anonymous-user]

TeddS said:

I call "bunk!" EV's cause much more pollution to manufacture. Unless the electricity is 100% renewable or nuclear, most EV's will never reach net neutral emissions before they are scrapped. (Which brings a whole new set of problems...) EV's are a political proposition, having nothing to do with long term environmental issues. Simply follow the money!

You forgot the tyre particulates, road crushing weights, cancer causing EM radiation from the power train and seagull shredding wind turbines.

[cardigankid]

Archie2050 said:

TeddS said:

I call "bunk!" EV's cause much more pollution to manufacture. Unless the electricity is 100% renewable or nuclear, most EV's will never reach net neutral emissions before they are scrapped. (Which brings a whole new set of problems...) EV's are a political proposition, having nothing to do with long term environmental issues. Simply follow the money!

You forgot the tyre particulates, road crushing weights, cancer causing EM radiation from the power train and seagull shredding wind turbines.

Yet he is still right. It is primarily about virtue signalling. EV taxis and buses are great for inner city air quality, but there is an environmental price to pay which you don't see.

[anonymous-user]

cardigankid said:

Archie2050 said:

TeddS said:

I call "bunk!" EV's cause much more pollution to manufacture. Unless the electricity is 100% renewable or nuclear, most EV's will never reach net neutral emissions before they are scrapped. (Which brings a whole new set of problems...) EV's are a political proposition, having nothing to do with long term environmental issues. Simply follow the money!

You forgot the tyre particulates, road crushing weights, cancer causing EM radiation from the power train and seagull shredding wind turbines.

Yet he is still right. It is primarily about virtue signalling. EV taxis and buses are great for inner city air quality, but there is an environmental price to pay which you don't see.

Why do you think that so many thorough environmental reports have disagreed with you then. They did carefully look at all of the life cycle effects of various types of car and all came to the conclusion that EV's were significantly less polluting than either hybrid or ICE vehicles.

What special insight do you have that they do not?


https://worldwide.kia.com/int/company/sustainabili...

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applica...

https://www.ricardo.com/en/news-and-insights/press...

https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1600176...

[SpeckledJim]

TeddS said:

Archie2050 said:

Jon39 said:

Archie2050 said:

In the meantime the vast majority of us will look at the consensus from reputable sources including the companies that have the biggest challenges from having to change to EV such as Volvo, Ricardo etc all of whom unequivocally state that EV's have a far lower lifetime environmental cost than ICE vehicles.

I wondered if ways of continuous generation need to be changed, to achieve what you have outlined ?

Yesterday evening I happened to notice, that UK electricity generation was only 6% by renewables.
More than half the electricity was being produced by burning gas, some of which would have been shipped here from USA and the Middle East.

It's all to do with the averages. In any case burning gas in a modern power station is a heck of a lot more efficient than burning petrol or diesel in a car. Every analysis using the UK or EU grid mix has shown EV's to be less carbon polluting than ICE vehicles, and its improving every year as the proportion of renewables rises.

I call "bunk!" EV's cause much more pollution to manufacture. Unless the electricity is 100% renewable or nuclear, most EV's will never reach net neutral emissions before they are scrapped. (Which brings a whole new set of problems...) EV's are a political proposition, having nothing to do with long term environmental issues. Simply follow the money!

This might be what we'd like to be true, but it is not true.

EVs are slightly more polluting in CO2 term to produce than a comparable ICE, and based on the UK energy mix, become overall better after around 40,000 miles.

That's not including the local benefits of no emissions in urban areas, which of course start from day 1.

By all means pretend its not the case, because we're all desperately big fans of intake roar, and exhaust bark, and massive amounts of wasted heat, but it is the case nonetheless.

But wait! Be of good heart! There's good news! Unless you're really quite young, then you'll never have to have one of the beastly silent things.

[TeddS]

Archie2050 said:

cardigankid said:

Archie2050 said:

TeddS said:

I call "bunk!" EV's cause much more pollution to manufacture. Unless the electricity is 100% renewable or nuclear, most EV's will never reach net neutral emissions before they are scrapped. (Which brings a whole new set of problems...) EV's are a political proposition, having nothing to do with long term environmental issues. Simply follow the money!

You forgot the tyre particulates, road crushing weights, cancer causing EM radiation from the power train and seagull shredding wind turbines.

Yet he is still right. It is primarily about virtue signalling. EV taxis and buses are great for inner city air quality, but there is an environmental price to pay which you don't see.

I like to see reports from people without a stake in the outcome, or companies shilling for other peoples money to support their bottom lines. Every environmental report that praises the glory of EV's is written by folks that financially benefit from the outcome. If you want to drive an EV, more power to you. But forcing everyone to submit to the environmental gods without a full vetting of cradle to grave views is not being truthful.

Everyone says, follow the science, but "who's science?" Most "environmental science" is from a particular point of view. If you dig deep enough, it's always about where they get their grant money from. There are a still segments of the scientific community that are not convinced of "global warming". This is usually folks that don't make their opinions from mass hysteria and where the money is. So, I say again, before you jump on any band wagon, follow the money....

I for one will continue to drive an ICE vehicle

Why do you think that so many thorough environmental reports have disagreed with you then. They did carefully look at all of the life cycle effects of various types of car and all came to the conclusion that EV's were significantly less polluting than either hybrid or ICE vehicles.

What special insight do you have that they do not?


https://worldwide.kia.com/int/company/sustainabili...

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applica...

https://www.ricardo.com/en/news-and-insights/press...

https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1600176...

[anonymous-user]

TeddS said:

Archie2050 said:

cardigankid said:

Archie2050 said:

TeddS said:

I call "bunk!" EV's cause much more pollution to manufacture. Unless the electricity is 100% renewable or nuclear, most EV's will never reach net neutral emissions before they are scrapped. (Which brings a whole new set of problems...) EV's are a political proposition, having nothing to do with long term environmental issues. Simply follow the money!

You forgot the tyre particulates, road crushing weights, cancer causing EM radiation from the power train and seagull shredding wind turbines.

Yet he is still right. It is primarily about virtue signalling. EV taxis and buses are great for inner city air quality, but there is an environmental price to pay which you don't see.

I like to see reports from people without a stake in the outcome, or companies shilling for other peoples money to support their bottom lines. Every environmental report that praises the glory of EV's is written by folks that financially benefit from the outcome. If you want to drive an EV, more power to you. But forcing everyone to submit to the environmental gods without a full vetting of cradle to grave views is not being truthful.

Everyone says, follow the science, but "who's science?" Most "environmental science" is from a particular point of view. If you dig deep enough, it's always about where they get their grant money from. There are a still segments of the scientific community that are not convinced of "global warming". This is usually folks that don't make their opinions from mass hysteria and where the money is. So, I say again, before you jump on any band wagon, follow the money....

I for one will continue to drive an ICE vehicle

Why do you think that so many thorough environmental reports have disagreed with you then. They did carefully look at all of the life cycle effects of various types of car and all came to the conclusion that EV's were significantly less polluting than either hybrid or ICE vehicles.

What special insight do you have that they do not?


https://worldwide.kia.com/int/company/sustainabili...

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applica...

https://www.ricardo.com/en/news-and-insights/press...

https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1600176...

You are right to be sceptical of course of vested interests. That is why it is important that environmental reports are independently audited by institutions without a financial interest in promoting EV's

The Carbon Trust is one such organisation.

They award 'Carbon Measured' Status to reports where they have independently verified the claims made. KIA amongst others have been awarded this status for their sustainability and lifecycle reports. That should go some way to reassure you. They don't have any interest in giving car companies a free ride, why would they?


https://www.carbontrust.com

https://www.automotiveworld.com/news-releases/kia-...

[NMNeil]

AstonV said:

EV’s are evil.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/03/02/its-time-to-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-ford-f150-...

Edited by AstonV on Friday 3rd March 17:22

The Amazon rain forest is being cleared so they can raise cattle that will be turned into hamburger meat.
McDonald's is therefore evil.

[SpeckledJim]

TeddS said:

Archie2050 said:

cardigankid said:

Archie2050 said:

TeddS said:

I call "bunk!" EV's cause much more pollution to manufacture. Unless the electricity is 100% renewable or nuclear, most EV's will never reach net neutral emissions before they are scrapped. (Which brings a whole new set of problems...) EV's are a political proposition, having nothing to do with long term environmental issues. Simply follow the money!

You forgot the tyre particulates, road crushing weights, cancer causing EM radiation from the power train and seagull shredding wind turbines.

Yet he is still right. It is primarily about virtue signalling. EV taxis and buses are great for inner city air quality, but there is an environmental price to pay which you don't see.

I like to see reports from people without a stake in the outcome, or companies shilling for other peoples money to support their bottom lines. Every environmental report that praises the glory of EV's is written by folks that financially benefit from the outcome. If you want to drive an EV, more power to you. But forcing everyone to submit to the environmental gods without a full vetting of cradle to grave views is not being truthful.

Everyone says, follow the science, but "who's science?" Most "environmental science" is from a particular point of view. If you dig deep enough, it's always about where they get their grant money from. There are a still segments of the scientific community that are not convinced of "global warming". This is usually folks that don't make their opinions from mass hysteria and where the money is. So, I say again, before you jump on any band wagon, follow the money....

I for one will continue to drive an ICE vehicle

Why do you think that so many thorough environmental reports have disagreed with you then. They did carefully look at all of the life cycle effects of various types of car and all came to the conclusion that EV's were significantly less polluting than either hybrid or ICE vehicles.

What special insight do you have that they do not?


https://worldwide.kia.com/int/company/sustainabili...

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applica...

https://www.ricardo.com/en/news-and-insights/press...

https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1600176...

Ok, we’ll show us the reports that you used for your position then.

The ones that prove EVs are more polluting.

[moktabe]

Just wondering if there is a thread anywhere on PH where leccyheads don't go banging on about how we ought to have an electric car and how wonderful they are?

If they want one then fine, just don't expect everyone to want one.

One of my cars is a V12 yet I don't hold the opinion everyone should have one.

[pschlute]

The whole issue of "sustainability" is clearly a real one, and equally one that is difficult to come to a singular resolution.

I love the roar of an ICE car like my DB11 and all those great sports cars that came before it, but also realise that there are problems with the concept of burning fossil fuel to power it.

I am in no way qualified to to argue the merits of electric versus ICE , and so can only go with what the majority of scientific experts appear to say. This seems to be.....phase out ICE completely for mass production vehicles. If this means some smaller producers can continue to make ICE vehicles then great.

The whole climate debate in my opinion completely ignore the elephant that is not even in the room. Population growth is the main threat to our survival as a species. But is a subject that is rarely covered.

[M1AGM]

moktabe said:

Just wondering if there is a thread anywhere on PH where leccyheads don't go banging on about how we ought to have an electric car and how wonderful they are?

If they want one then fine, just don't expect everyone to want one.

One of my cars is a V12 yet I don't hold the opinion everyone should have one.

Trying a thread that doesn’t have the words ‘electric’ and ‘vehicle’ in the title would be a good shout?

I think ‘banging on’ is a bit harsh.

Cant recall anyone saying everyone must have one either.