Jump to content

phasing out of fossil fuels - programme


magpie patrick

Featured Posts

52 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

 

Whilst there are several examples of successful serial hybrid-powered narrowboats currently navigating the inland waterways, the technology is still in its infancy and the reality is that for many years to come the diesel engine-powered craft will continue to rule supreme. After all, who in their right mind is going to ditch an engine with 20 – 30 years useful life left in it and replace same with an expensive, retro-fitted hybrid installation?

 

First generation biodiesel (of FAME fame) is not compatible with the marine environment and by 2024, when the Government objective of B12 has to be met, this will no doubt have become all too apparent. At about 86% carbon neutral this will have once appeared, upon casual examination, to have been an attractive solution. It certainly was to me when I first started using it in my own vehicles 17 years ago. Since then I've experienced all its shortcomings and suffice it to say it has never been near my boat (or its engine).

 

However, second generation biodiesel is now well and truly with us in the form of Hydro-treated Vegetable Oil (HVO) and this is what David refers to as being trialed in a fleet of tugs operating on the Thames and its estuary. It carries OEM approvals from pretty much all the main diesel engine manufacturers in the world and is superior in performance to dino-diesel (the mineral stuff). To pick two random examples, it has a shelf life of of 10 years (so diesel-bug is a thing of the past) and in recent trials in a 24-tonne Land and Water swing shovel, fuel consumption improved by 10-12% while NoX decreased by a similar amount.

 

At approximately 92% carbon neutral, it is clearly the drop in fuel for the above-mentioned parc of diesel-engined inland waterways boats, with just price and availability being potentially one of the short- to medium-term stumbling blocks.

 

 

I ran full biodiesel in my Barrus Shire for most of my ownership with no I'll effects, it didn't smoke smelt different and was cheaper to buy. My bubble stove liked it, but the whispergen didn't, I picked up 1000 litres of failed biodiesel which went in the bubble and whispergen it worked well apparently it wasn't slippy enough so don't know what happened in it process? However it was free so I didn't complain at all. I just wish I could now get another 1000 litres as my kerosene is running low, at the same great price though ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And digging for litheum done by poor very poorly paid folk.  My new car is petrol, 70mpg, road tax exempt so that suits me, very low emissions.     Tony Suzuki gangster and downtown hoodlum.

Edited by bizzard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During WW2,I was told (but don't know if was true) that private cars used to run on domestic gas.

They apparently had a dirty great inflatable mattress on the roof,and used to inflate them with gas from home.

If hydrogen was much cheaper,it could be a "greener"and simpler way to cut emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bizzard said:

And digging for litheum done by poor very poorly paid folk.  My new car is petrol, 70mpg, road tax exempt so that suits me, very low emissions.     Tony Suzuki gangster and downtown hoodlum.

And electric cars are generally much heavier needing bigger wider tyres to support them. More road noise, and rubber polution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

Found this in Fridays Daily Mail, can't find a link so scanned it.  Makes interesting reading.

 

 

 

 

 

img040.jpg

And? Given that most modern cars do 150k I can't see any problems some of the teslas have clocked up 500k already 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

During WW2,I was told (but don't know if was true) that private cars used to run on domestic gas.

They apparently had a dirty great inflatable mattress on the roof,and used to inflate them with gas from home.

If hydrogen was much cheaper,it could be a "greener"and simpler way to cut emissions.

Corporal Jones in Dads Army tried that on his van, he jerked and his rifles bayonet poked up through the cab roof and burst it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

During WW2,I was told (but don't know if was true) that private cars used to run on domestic gas.

They apparently had a dirty great inflatable mattress on the roof,and used to inflate them with gas from home.

If hydrogen was much cheaper,it could be a "greener"and simpler way to cut emissions.

 

WW2 :

 

60+ Our Home guard ideas | home guard, dad's army, british comedy

 

 

 

Even in WW1

 

Gas bag car 3

 

Dad's Army :

 

Dad's Army" The Armoured Might of Lance Corporal Jones (TV Episode 1969) -  IMDb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

During WW2,I was told (but don't know if was true) that private cars used to run on domestic gas.

They apparently had a dirty great inflatable mattress on the roof,and used to inflate them with gas from home.

If hydrogen was much cheaper,it could be a "greener"and simpler way to cut emissions.

Some of the buses around here have been converted to run on gas. They've got a solid tank on the roof rather than an inflatable one, so no bayonet issues!

34150652972_1667509e3d_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, peterboat said:

And? Given that most modern cars do 150k I can't see any problems some of the teslas have clocked up 500k already 

That's true Peter,but it's the initial price of electric cars that those of us of modest means can't run to.

My present car (petrol) is getting rather "crabby"and I have looked at the price of even a used electric car and I can't justify spending a chunk of my kid's inheritance on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

That's true Peter,but it's the initial price of electric cars that those of us of modest means can't run to.

My present car (petrol) is getting rather "crabby"and I have looked at the price of even a used electric car and I can't justify spending a chunk of my kid's inheritance on one.

Mg estate new, but Nissan leads make a good runaround  I have an Axiam mega city e that I have fitted lithium polymer batteries to range around 140 miles, it has about 3k in it I think 

Edited by peterboat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the analysis in the report is correct -- and you should always ask, who commisioned the report and what is their agenda? -- then it's not surprising that current BEV take more energy to manufacture than ICE, Li-ion batteries are very energy-intensive to make.

 

However even ignoring the effect that other battery chemistries with lower CO2 impact than Li-ion will almost certainly come along, the average car is scrapped at about 200k miles. So using the report figures the CO2 is break-even at 50k miles, which means the EV is 30 tonnes of CO2 ahead by the time it's scrapped. Maybe more for EV since they should last longer, there are fewer things to wear out -- managed properly even the current batteries are good for 500k miles, with 1M miles on the horizon according to Tesla.

 

So remind me again, why are EV so bad (or "not so good") for CO2 compared to ICE?

 

Agreed that BEV are more expensive to buy today (but much cheaper to run), however the price for new EV is reckoned to be the same as ICE by around 2024, and cheaper thereafter. Which means secondhand EV will be cheaper to buy than ICE a few years later, and cheapies (bangers) a few years after that. If you take fuel and servicing costs over (say) 3 years into account new BEV have already reached price parity.

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, IanD said:

Even if the analysis in the report is correct -- and you should always ask, who commisioned the report and what is their agenda? -- then it's not surprising that current BEV take more energy to manufacture than ICE, Li-ion batteries are very energy-intensive to make.

 

However even ignoring the effect that other battery chemistries with lower CO2 impact than Li-ion will almost certainly come along, the average car is scrapped at about 200k miles. So using the report figures the CO2 is break-even at 50k miles, which means the EV is 30 tonnes of CO2 ahead by the time it's scrapped. Maybe more for EV since they should last longer, there are fewer things to wear out -- managed properly even the current batteries are good for 500k miles, with 1M miles on the horizon according to Tesla.

 

So remind me again, why are EV so bad (or "not so good") for CO2 compared to ICE?

 

Agreed that BEV are more expensive to buy today (but much cheaper to run), however the price for new EV is reckoned to be the same as ICE by around 2024, and cheaper thereafter. Which means secondhand EV will be cheaper to buy than ICE a few years later, and cheapies (bangers) a few years after that. If you take fuel and servicing costs over (say) 3 years into account new BEV have already reached price parity.

Because big oil says so

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, IanD said:

Even if the analysis in the report is correct -- and you should always ask, who commisioned the report and what is their agenda? 

It clearly says in the article it was commisioned by the likes of Honda, Aston Martin, Bosch, McClaren, BMW & VW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

During WW2,I was told (but don't know if was true) that private cars used to run on domestic gas.

They apparently had a dirty great inflatable mattress on the roof,and used to inflate them with gas from home.

If hydrogen was much cheaper,it could be a "greener"and simpler way to cut emissions.

the photo had been done so here it an upmarket model https://www.britishpathe.com/video/bus-with-gas-trailer

Edited by ditchcrawler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Col_T said:

I find that really, really surprising - do you have a reference for that?

try entering "average car mileage before scrapping" into Google, it's really not difficult... ?

 

The point is that so long as the average is much higher than 50k miles (which it is) the exact number doesn't matter, EVs win.

2 hours ago, Flyboy said:

It clearly says in the article it was commisioned by the likes of Honda, Aston Martin, Bosch, McClaren, BMW & VW.

I can read too, and that was exactly my point -- *always* check where a "report" came from, very often it's biased (not difficult to do with cherry-picking of numbers -- not that I'm saying they did that, but they have form...) or at the very least funded by companies with vested interests.

 

In this case, you could say the vested interest is to get people to carry on buying their ICE cars instead of Teslas... ?

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most cars in the UK are not scrapped at 200K. Nothing like it. They might be capable of getting to 200K if you are prepared to keep repairing the niggly faults that crop up. Manufacturers are very good at building obsolescence in to their cars. A friend has sent two cars for recycling this weekend. One has done 93K and the body is disintegrating, rust too close to subframe mounting points. The other is in need of a new clutch plate and flywheel at 88K. Cost is more than the car is worth.

 

I would be very suprised if the average car has done more than 80K when it is scrapped. Don't forget all the youngsters that are written off or mysteriously disappear during the night. They will offset the outliers that you are fondly remembering. Your average Joe equates reliability to something with less than starship milage.

 

The report appeared in The Times as well but I didn't flag it up because of who the sponsors  are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, IanD said:

try entering "average car mileage before scrapping" into Google, it's really not difficult...

That figure appears to be from the USA 

Whats the relevant figure for the UK?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I wonder what it would be for India, do they ever scrap a car?

 

I was in Goa in 2014, I saw  a very badly damaged hindustan ambassador repaired by a team of guys, it was amazing to see it when finished. I also bought a new Bajaj RE4S Tuk Tuk which I still have, happy days and a country that I can't wait to return to 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MartynG said:

That figure appears to be from the USA 

Whats the relevant figure for the UK?

 

Go and look for yourself ?

 

Took me 10 seconds to find an old answer to this:
 
11th March 2011, 13:02
model/ country. US: 160,000. Australia: 145,000. UK: 125,000. Canada & France: 115,000. Rest of Europe: 105,000. Japan: 70,000.
 

Like the article quoted elsewhere said, the CO2 break-even point (including manufacture) for EV compared to ICE could be 50k miles, every 50k above this puts the BEV about 10 tons of CO2 ahead. And what matters here isn't really the UK, it's what happens worldwide.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IanD said:

the average car is scrapped at about 200k miles.

Really? I tend to be the last owner of any car but have only once taken a car to over 200k. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I doubt it's the average

 

For the record, I don't think it needs to be the average either - 100k will still see an all-electric car have less energy consumption than a fossil fuelled one over the full life cycle. 

 

What I have found is a tendency for it to be non-motive-power parts that give in, on my Golf the steering rack failed, on my Renault the brake pipes corroded, and on my Rover it simply fell apart. The latter is probably predictable, but I thought I'd get more than 140k out of the Golf, and the steering rack is a mileage related failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Really? I tend to be the last owner of any car but have only once taken a car to over 200k. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I doubt it's the average

 

For the record, I don't think it needs to be the average either - 100k will still see an all-electric car have less energy consumption than a fossil fuelled one over the full life cycle. 

 

What I have found is a tendency for it to be non-motive-power parts that give in, on my Golf the steering rack failed, on my Renault the brake pipes corroded, and on my Rover it simply fell apart. The latter is probably predictable, but I thought I'd get more than 140k out of the Golf, and the steering rack is a mileage related failure.

I was lazy and quoted the first number I found. Spending an extra 10 seconds gave numbers for different countries, see above -- 125k for UK, some countries are higher, some lower...

 

All this also ignores that BEV are likely to have longer lifetimes than ICE because there's less to wear out and maintenance/repair/fuel costs are lower -- not a guess, based on facts from the hire car business.

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.