Green propaganda

[SplendidChap]

Actually the greatest amount of pollution in a car's life is caused by its manufacture, from ore extraction, transportation and the factory. So any car kept for 20 years is greener than any electric car kept for 10.
You think diesels are getting hard to shift, try selling a 10 year old hybrid. Battery on its last legs, which incidentally is made of nasty toxic stuff which caused vast environmental damage to mine and a whole lot more to dispose of. It isn't economically viable to replace the battery pack.
Most electric hybrids aren't plugged in and rely on their petrol engine to charge the battery, getting a real world 30ish mpg. Trying plugging in your hybrid when you live in a terraced house. Toys for those ultimate oxymorons, green consumers. If you are consuming mains electricity to run your car then that's the equivalent of running on red diesel. Electricity used for vehicles ought to be taxed at the same rate as petrol. Why should the rest of us have to subsidise all the upgrades to the grid required.
I'm sure you can add a few more...

[MSS]

That paragraph could be seen as coming across as very one-sided fossil fuel industry propaganda!

[SplendidChap]

Just trying to present the other side of the argument. We hear such a one sided view.
Personally I like a nice steam engine

[murphyv310]

Originally Posted by mss

That paragraph could be seen as coming across as very one-sided fossil fuel industry propaganda!

I see your point mss but the one word "could" stands out.
Yes indeed it could be one sided but there are many valid points. Electric cars including battery manufacturing and disposal are far from pollutant free. I also have to agree with the OP why should everyone subsidise those that "choose" to purchase an EV. Let's hope that doesn't occur. I'm sure it will take a few years before we have any real ideas of the impact.

[Avulon]

My enduring image is of the Top Gear team test driving a BMW economically around a track while a Prius tried to keep up - The BMW had better fuel economy and less environmental impact being built originally. The Prius couldn't benefit at all from it's electric parts during the test - it just couldn't keep up without using it's petrol engine, at the same time the BMW was being driven in a relatively relaxed manner...

I fear that the battery driven world is already starting to face a problem with disposal - recycling of old batteries - when it makes a whole car uneconmical to run, then I think the real cost to the user becomes apparent. Take a rover 75 bought in 2000 for example, with regular maintenance average mileage and prompt repairs to failing parts 20years is easily achievable economically.
less than a £1000 per year for the car itself. Then take an electric car that's uneconmical to 'repair' (replace a disposable component) the battery in 10 years or less - it doesn't and never will make sense to me. For electric cars to be viable they need a better way of storing the energy.

[Mr bountyfull]

Originally Posted by Avulon

My enduring image is of the Top Gear team test driving a BMW economically around a track while a Prius tried to keep up - The BMW had better fuel economy and less environmental impact being built originally. The Prius couldn't benefit at all from it's electric parts during the test - it just couldn't keep up without using it's petrol engine, at the same time the BMW was being driven in a relatively relaxed manner...

I fear that the battery driven world is already starting to face a problem with disposal - recycling of old batteries - when it makes a whole car uneconmical to run, then I think the real cost to the user becomes apparent. Take a rover 75 bought in 2000 for example, with regular maintenance average mileage and prompt repairs to failing parts 20years is easily achievable economically.
less than a £1000 per year for the car itself. Then take an electric car that's uneconmical to 'repair' (replace a disposable component) the battery in 10 years or less - it doesn't and never will make sense to me. For electric cars to be viable they need a better way of storing the energy.

I was in conversation with a certain breakdown company. The top end ev cars you know the ones seem to be the new fiats of the 70/80!

[MSS]

The problem with the first post above is that in my view it represents one-dimensional thinking - exactly what I believe the OP is attempting to counter.

The drive behind the development of EV technology is not so that IC cars should be replaced prematurely, but that in certain circumstances an EV can make a better alternative to an IC car when the original reaches the end of it's useful life.

EV technology cars make sense in areas of high population density i.e. in cities where the distances driven are generally short but traffic congestion generally high, leading to high impact on the pupulation.

As humans, we are capable of making intelligent decisions based on likely usage patterns.

At the end of the day, no transport vehicle is clean - it is always going to be a case of the decision makers having to balance a number of variables to chose the least impacting of the pollution sources.

[SplendidChap]

In areas of high population density public transport is the obvious solution. Hong Kong and Singapore shows where it's going.
In HK you are limited to a micro car unless you own a parking space. Singapore has just banned any increase in the number of private cars.
Amsterdam is an impressive city for transport solutions with it's separate tracks for bicycles, cars and trams. And if you can do it in a place like Amsterdam with all its canals then there's no excuse for not doing it elsewhere.

[murphyv310]

I agree Maninder, why the change you may ask? Well it's not so much of a change but we at now being told that CO2 levels have increased more in 2016 than in 800,000 years!!! Absolutely amazing how they can accurately know, perhaps the radio carbon dating is wrong and everything else for that matter. Now we are told that Glasgow has higher pollution than London. Oh well us poor folk won't have any private transport soon so I've stopped worrying, I'll get a mobility scooter and get it remapped.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by murphyv310

I agree Maninder, why the change you may ask? Well it's not so much of a change but we at now being told that CO2 levels have increased more in 2016 than in 800,000 years!!! Absolutely amazing how they can accurately know, perhaps the radio carbon dating is wrong and everything else for that matter. Now we are told that Glasgow has higher pollution than London. Oh well us poor folk won't have any private transport soon so I've stopped worrying, I'll get a mobility scooter and get it remapped.

I wouldn’t mind but once again the greenys play with the figures in an underhand way - whilst the 2016 El Niño is mentioned - the emphasis is on “human activity”.

What they don’t tell you is that in 1998 the El Niño increased CO2 levels by 2.7ppm

So the reality is maybe 0.6 of one part per million may be down to human activity. Or it may not - it may just have been a bigger El Niño last year?

And what is one ppm in percentage terms? - it is 0.0001%

So the increase over the last El Niño amounts to 0.00006%

Meanwhile - each one of us breaths out CO2 in concentrations around 40,000ppm in our expelled breath.

Concentrations of CO2 in the workplace, homes - and of course Submarines in particular- are WAY HIGHER than the 400 odd ppm the greenys are getting all excited about.

They would have you believe CO2 is a poison - it isn’t - it is plant food. CO2 levels have been higher in the past - increased CO2 levels will simply increase crop yields - as it does in greenhouses where market gardeners artificially increase CO2 levels to increase yield.