Still Lead in the Old Pencil

[cuthound]

10 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I read something a while back that suggested a petrol/ diesel car would need to run for 200,000 miles for the emissions created in doing those miles to match the levels of emissions from the manufacture and disposal of a vehicle. From this we might conclude that the best solution would be, as suggested, to fit electric engines into existing cars. Failing this, the next best thing would be to keep cars that are currently on the road going for as long as possible. The very worst option is to scrap existing cars in favour of new ones, regardless of how the new ones are powered.  

 

Yes, but the manufacturers will have lobbied governments hard to do this.

 

Then once we all have EV's they will begin lobbying for something else, perhaps hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.

 

After all this marketing strategy worked very well for the music industry (vinyl, cassettes, DAT, CD's, downloads and now leasing via Spotify etc).

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Which is why they all go to China and the far east, that's after being relifed here first,, it's also why they have no idea how much recycling is really carried out 

 

Yes it is very green shipping tons of waste across oceans to be recycled. ?

Edited October 30, 2019 by cuthound
To add spaces between merged posts

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

Yes, but the manufsctuers will have lobbied governments hard to do this.

 

Then once we all have EV's thry will begin lobbying for something else, perhaps hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.

 

After all this marketing strategy worked vdry well for the music industry (vinyl, cassettes, DAT, CD's, downloads and now leasing via Spotify etc).

Do you think that the motor industry wants to give up ICE? Because if it wasn't for Tesla's they would not have bothered 

3 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Yes, but the manufacturers will have lobbied governments hard to do this.

 

Then once we all have EV's they will begin lobbying for something else, perhaps hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.

 

After all this marketing strategy worked very well for the music industry (vinyl, cassettes, DAT, CD's, downloads and now leasing via Spotify etc).

 

 

 

 

Yes it is very green shipping tons of waste across oceans to be recycled. ?

On the same boats that brought all the batteries in the first place ?

[cuthound]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

Do you think that the motor industry wants to give up ICE? Because if it wasn't for Tesla's they would not have bothered 

 

No, I'm sure they would rather keep ICE's, but once the development costs have been amortized, EV's are much cheaper to produce, so they see EV's as an opportunity to sell everyone a new car and then repeat sales thereafter will be at a higher profit margin, because we will have been conditioned into thinking thst a £35k EV is cheap.

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

No, I'm sure they would rather keep ICE's, but once the development costs have been amortized, EV's are much cheaper to produce, so they see EV's as an opportunity to sell everyone a new car and then repeat sales thereafter will be at a higher profit margin, because we will have been conditioned into thinking thst a £35k EV is cheap.

Evs are getting cheaper all the time and better than the ice equivalent plus once the supply is in place the government will be looking for new tax receipts 

[Chewbacka]

16 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

I once read an article about whole life costs for cars. It concluded that the Land Rover Defender and Jeep Wrangler were the greenest vehicles, because they had relatively few design changes during their long production lives. They included the costs of building, heating and cooling the design studio's necessary to house the designers, as well as the changes to buildings needed to house the production lines and the costs of building and operating the buildings occupied by the supply chain

 

Apparently, if you include all of these costs as well as the more obvious mining, smelting and transport costs for the raw materials, the whole life cost and emissions of actually operating the vehicle are relatively small.

 

Meanwhile we are about to scrap millions of serviceable  vehicles and replace them with EV's, when the best solution would surely be to produce "drop in" electric motor and battery packs into existing vehicles.

But it depends on what you are trying to protect.  If you want to clean up city air, allowing filthy old Diesel engine vehicles into cities is a bad idea.  Bristol announced yesterday that they are wanting to ban ALL diesel cars from a central zone, and big fees for diesel cars to enter the surrounding zone.  This they say is the only way to meet air quality requirements.  Like it or not, diesel is not long for this world.

[cuthound]

6 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Evs are getting cheaper all the time and better than the ice equivalent plus once the supply is in place the government will be looking for new tax receipts 

 

Yup, with thectechnogy available today, road pricing based on mileage and congestion looks inevitable.

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

But it depends on what you are trying to protect.  If you want to clean up city air, allowing filthy old Diesel engine vehicles into cities is a bad idea.  Bristol announced yesterday that they are wanting to ban ALL diesel cars from a central zone, and big fees for diesel cars to enter the surrounding zone.  This they say is the only way to meet air quality requirements.  Like it or not, diesel is not long for this world.

 

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

Yup, with thectechnogy available today, road pricing based on mileage and congestion looks inevitable.

I read that, the couple I am staying with own a garage and have suddenly realised that things are going to change 

[cuthound]

I saw an article in my news feed the other day where Ford and another major diesel engine manufacturer are investing big money into mixing the fuel and air in the inlet duct, rather than in the cylinder.

 

Apparently this dramatically reduces soot (75%+ reduction) and separates the production of NOx and soot which are currently linked. It also increases power output. By reducing soot, you can recirculate much more exhaust gas which in turn reduces NOx. Initial tests show that DPF's and AdBlue will no longer be needed to meet the most stringent emissions standards.

 

However initially they will focus on making clean engines for commercial markets such as trucks, trains and standby generators, where EV's are not practical.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by cuthound
To remove a letter masquerading as a space

[Machpoint005]

34 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Which is why they all go to China and the far east, that's after being relifed here first,, it's also why they have no idea how much recycling is really carried out 

That's a benefit for the technology's carbon footprint, then?

(both directions of travel)

[MtB]

34 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Then once we all have EV's they will begin lobbying for something else, perhaps hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.

 

^^^^This, exactly^^^^

 

And once we all have the EVs, the reason we will be given for changing them all to hydrogen ICE engines will be that "no-one realised Li batts are so environmentally unfriendly...."

[peterboat]

I don't think we will have to worry about it 2029 meteorite is supposed to hit earth so jobs done!

[Machpoint005]

Just now, peterboat said:

I don't think we will have to worry about it 2029 meteorite is supposed to hit earth so jobs done!

 

How do they know? If it's going fast enough to do damage it will be invisible until 2028.

(unless you mean nearly 8:30 this evening)

[peterboat]

No idea but they do so let's all go back to 10 litre monsters etc?

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, Chewbacka said:

>>  If you want to clean up city air, allowing filthy old Diesel engine vehicles into cities is a bad idea.  Bristol announced yesterday that they are wanting to ban ALL diesel cars from a central zone, and big fees for diesel cars to enter the surrounding zone.  <<

 

They would do a lot better (as would most cities and large towns) by banning ALL private cars and providing free buses instead.

 

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

No idea but they do so let's all go back to 10 litre monsters etc?

 

Nobody is seriously suggesting that. Let's not pretend that petrol cars are clean: they are not. Neither are electric vehicles, if you look at the whole picture. As usual, the powers that be, aided by a sensationalist meejah, are merely tinkering with local effects instead of addressing the underlying problem.  

 

[The Welsh Cruiser]

2 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

But it depends on what you are trying to protect.  If you want to clean up city air, allowing filthy old Diesel engine vehicles into cities is a bad idea.  Bristol announced yesterday that they are wanting to ban ALL diesel cars from a central zone, and big fees for diesel cars to enter the surrounding zone.  This they say is the only way to meet air quality requirements.  Like it or not, diesel is not long for this world.

Is it not a little selfish to clean up city air, knowing that by doing so there will be negative impacts elsewhere?

 

Joined up thinking, nationally, regionally and globally is the only solution. Power crazed city mayors on ego trips, grandstanding with their spurious proclamations that they are saving the planet are actually doing it no favours whatsoever.

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

They would do a lot better (as would most cities and large towns) by banning ALL private cars and providing free buses instead.

 

 

Nobody is seriously suggesting that. Let's not pretend that petrol cars are clean: they are not. Neither are electric vehicles, if you look at the whole picture. As usual, the powers that be, aided by a sensationalist meejah, are merely tinkering with local effects instead of addressing the underlying problem.  

 

Petrol or diesel they both cause local pollution which kills locally and centrally where it's made, drilled for and transported, both locally and globally, it's a filthy business! Electric is way cleaner don't believe the billions that oil companies are paying to discredit electric because you become a cause not a solution 

[Machpoint005]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

Electric is way cleaner

 

How is the electricity generated? How are the metals for batteries mined? How does the labour-intensive recycling of lithium (for example) get carried out, bearing in mind that it happens in less developed countries with a low regard for personal safety?

 

As I was saying, we need to consider the whole picture.

[peterboat]

Just now, Machpoint005 said:

 

How is the electricity generated? How are the metals for batteries mined? How does the labour-intensive recycling of lithium (for example) get carried out, bearing in mind that it happens in less developed countries with a low regard for personal safety?

 

As I was saying, we need to consider the whole picture.

I am looking at a load of wind turbines bit cleaner than oil plus batteries can be recycled oil only polutes

[Machpoint005]

I don't dispute that for a moment, but a great deal of the world's energy is fossil-fuel derived and banning ICE cars from city centres makes no difference.

[doratheexplorer]

5 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

I don't dispute that for a moment, but a great deal of the world's energy is fossil-fuel derived and banning ICE cars from city centres makes no difference.

Banning polluting cars from city centres isn't abuot reducing carbon emmissions, it's about improving air quality.  Why should people who live in city centres, who typically have the smallest carbon footprints of any part of the population, have to suffer ill health caused by the highest polluters?

[The Welsh Cruiser]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

Banning polluting cars from city centres isn't abuot reducing carbon emmissions, it's about improving air quality.  Why should people who live in city centres, who typically have the smallest carbon footprints of any part of the population, have to suffer ill health caused by the highest polluters?

Because those who make bad decisions in life have to deal with the consequences. Said slightly tongue in cheek but only slightly, I don't see it fair and equitable that the rest of the earth should take a 'hit', in order that people who choose to live in a small number of cities can have cleaner air. 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

Why should people who live in city centres,

 

Why should anyone live anywhere in particular? We all have a choice where to live. City centres are usually one of the most expensive choices in any given area. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

Banning polluting cars from city centres isn't abuot reducing carbon emmissions, it's about improving air quality.

 

That I understand, but shifting pollution to somewhere else isn't dealing with the whole problem, it is just benefiting a few city dwellers (arguably only slightly).

 

By the way, all cars emit particulates, including electric cars - tyre and brake dust accounts for half of urban particulate pollution. Even Peterboat doesn't claim that BEVs don't need tyres or brakes.   

Which is why I say ban the lot of them from city centres and provide free public transport.

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Which is why I say ban the lot of them from city centres and provide free public transport.

 

Stand by for a LOAD of yummy mummies suddenly needing to drive expensive vans!!

 

 

[Machpoint005]

Don't they have legs?

They could save a fortune on "going to the gym" too!