Another one bites the dust

[Sebastienclement]

Originally Posted by The Rovering Member

If the London ULEZ extension comes in as is being planned then no 75 will be exempt from the daily charge. So expect a lot more to be scrapped in the coming years, especially if scrappage schemes are offered on new cars.

https://the75andztclub.co.uk/forum/s....php?p=2387078

My V6 shows as compliant on the ULEZ checker.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[SideValve]

Personally I hope this will be the future
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IGjOY4JBmy4

Instead of scrapping the existing millions of cars on the road have them upgraded to electric. If we were intelligent we'd get a government scheme running and lead the world.
I can dream....

[Rickoshea]

Originally Posted by Andy_with_a_screwdriver

Unless the electricity comes exclusively from wind, solar or tidal power there is still pollution generated via energy from waste, natural gas, nuclear etc. Even the renewables above have a carbon footprint for manufacture and installation of equipment.
The pollution is being moved from one place to another, plus there is the mining of lithium for batteries.

Late response but this is just not true. ICE cars are churning out pollution all the time they are being driven and particularly those using the devil's fuel. Worse, the total carbon foot print is even bleaker. The oil needs to be pumped out of the ground, pumped into tankers that will transport it half way round the world (pumping out even more pollution than a VW all the way). Once it arrives here it needs to be unloaded, refined, loaded into tankers (also propelled by the devil's fuel) to take it to your favourite fuel station. I short, a huge carbon footprint.

Currently 20% of electricity comes from solar, 20-25% from nuclear, 20% from wind and the balance from gas powered stations. Coal is now negligible. A very small carbon foot print burning the least polluting fossil fuel in the cleanest way possible! The life expectancy of solar panels is estimated at 25 years but why should they wear out and suspect 50 might be closer to the mark. Wind turbines seem good to 20 to 25 years and our nuclear stations have been running for over 40 years. Batteries were originally be talked about as having life of 8 to 10 years. This now appears to be hopelessly pessimistic as the Toyota Pious has been around for years without problems. Better still any sub optimal batteries can be recycled for home storage of solar generated electricity. The footprint of generating the electricity and maintaining the infrastructure is tiny in comparison to the ice car.

I have had solar panels on my house for 7 years and have also added a Tesla battery. My combined gas and electricity monthly bill is now half my water rates. Oh, and we also get a £1,600 a year subsidy from the government for the electricity we produce that is guaranteed, index linked and tax free for 25 years (well 18 left!). If I get a Jaguar Ipace, I think I will have enough spare generation to propel it 3,000 miles for free!

You know it makes sense!

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by Rickoshea

Late response but this is just not true. ICE cars are churning out pollution all the time they are being driven and particularly those using the devil's fuel. Worse, the total carbon foot print is even bleaker. The oil needs to be pumped out of the ground, pumped into tankers that will transport it half way round the world (pumping out even more pollution than a VW all the way). Once it arrives here it needs to be unloaded, refined, loaded into tankers (also propelled by the devil's fuel) to take it to your favourite fuel station. I short, a huge carbon footprint.

Currently 20% of electricity comes from solar, 20-25% from nuclear, 20% from wind and the balance from gas powered stations. Coal is now negligible. A very small carbon foot print burning the least polluting fossil fuel in the cleanest way possible! The life expectancy of solar panels is estimated at 25 years but why should they wear out and suspect 50 might be closer to the mark. Wind turbines seem good to 20 to 25 years and our nuclear stations have been running for over 40 years. Batteries were originally be talked about as having life of 8 to 10 years. This now appears to be hopelessly pessimistic as the Toyota Pious has been around for years without problems. Better still any sub optimal batteries can be recycled for home storage of solar generated electricity. The footprint of generating the electricity and maintaining the infrastructure is tiny in comparison to the ice car.

I have had solar panels on my house for 7 years and have also added a Tesla battery. My combined gas and electricity monthly bill is now half my water rates. Oh, and we also get a £1,600 a year subsidy from the government for the electricity we produce that is guaranteed, index linked and tax free for 25 years (well 18 left!). If I get a Jaguar Ipace, I think I will have enough spare generation to propel it 3,000 miles for free!

You know it makes sense!

now factor in everything it takes to make a new car starting with design. All parts have to be made, pollution, factories run, pollution, parts transported, pollution, manufacture of transport vehicles, pollution and here we are on a merry go round.

old cars will die a neutral death but not only do we need low emission vehicles, we need a long line of low emission production.

once we offset the pollution created to make and run a new car against the pollution of running an existing car, what is the difference in the next 100,000 miles?

I'm not saying don't have new cars, I'm suggesting the low emission is not quite as low once everything is factored in.

perhaps we should only allow new low emission engines to go into existing cars currently produced and continue with fitting every lower emission engines

macafee2