So by buying their ev's we still pollute the planet and pay them and call our self's green, they must be p-ssi-ng them selfs all the way to the bank
Electric cars.
- Thread starter Polcho
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
You could argue that we pollute the planet just by existing. Those coalmines are burning regardless of what kind of car they are manufacturing parts for. The difference is that when I took delivery of this car, I wasn't putting out any further emissions for the duration of my ownership.
I have read some of this thread, and you seem like a thoughtful group to discuss this with, so here goes.
- I think a lot of the issues with electric cars, weight, cost, depreciation, fire risk will be worked around as the technology matures and becomes more widely used / available. The history of new tech tells us this. When the very first cars were released those who were wedded to horse and carts swore it would never catch on.
- For people who can charge at home, and don't face the issues associated with charging on the go, then there is a clear use case. But as the subsidies come to end, the cost savings will not be nearly so great. But by all means ride the subsidy while you can. The reason I choose not to is that I do very few miles and therefore depreciation would likely outweigh any fuel saving.
- But I think there are 2 more deep seated issues:
1. The comment above is a true word said in jest. The UK strategy seems to be to effectively export our emissions to China, which will gladly build what we want using coal fired power. Not just cars, solar panels and wind turbines face the same issue. As well as dramatically limiting any global environmental benefit, this will hurt our economy and give more power to China. The decision to be dependent on Russia for energy after Crimea is now one we regret, and I have the same worry here.
2. Public charging. There are major issues with this, and the current trajectory (with car sales increasing more than the amount of public chargers) means the situation is getting worse, not better. If a recharge takes (conservatively) 10 times as long as a fuel stop then we need many more charging points than petrol pumps to provide enough "liquidity". My worry here is that we cannot even get the easy stuff right - eg the issue of myriad incompatible apps to make the chargers work - it needs to be a simple and ubiquitous experience, like buying fuel. The harder issues, charging points for those who park on the street, and national grid capacity seem to be beyond the delivery capability of UK plc at the moment.
And following on from 2 is the comparison to the horse and cart point. Whilst cars were initially unreliable it was a reasonable assumption that they would soon lead to huge progress (the industrial revolution happened for a reason). So people had a choice, and could migrate when the tech suited them. The same will not be true of electric cars - it is just a fact that longer re-fuelling stops make a journey slower and less convenient than shorter ones. I might want a long break, but I want to choose the duration and location of that break. Therefore, for the first time in living memory, changes are being proposed that will lower our quality of life compared to the recent past, rather than increase it. It might be true that a majority of the public would support this if worldwide action is taken, but there will be no substantive support as long as China and other places don't join in. This problem will worsen as the costs come into sharper focus.
I think the answer is a blend of technologies, rather than sledgehammer solutions like banning the ICE and any policy with the word "zero" in. Like zero Covid, extreme solutions rarely work.
- I think a lot of the issues with electric cars, weight, cost, depreciation, fire risk will be worked around as the technology matures and becomes more widely used / available. The history of new tech tells us this. When the very first cars were released those who were wedded to horse and carts swore it would never catch on.
- For people who can charge at home, and don't face the issues associated with charging on the go, then there is a clear use case. But as the subsidies come to end, the cost savings will not be nearly so great. But by all means ride the subsidy while you can. The reason I choose not to is that I do very few miles and therefore depreciation would likely outweigh any fuel saving.
- But I think there are 2 more deep seated issues:
1. The comment above is a true word said in jest. The UK strategy seems to be to effectively export our emissions to China, which will gladly build what we want using coal fired power. Not just cars, solar panels and wind turbines face the same issue. As well as dramatically limiting any global environmental benefit, this will hurt our economy and give more power to China. The decision to be dependent on Russia for energy after Crimea is now one we regret, and I have the same worry here.
2. Public charging. There are major issues with this, and the current trajectory (with car sales increasing more than the amount of public chargers) means the situation is getting worse, not better. If a recharge takes (conservatively) 10 times as long as a fuel stop then we need many more charging points than petrol pumps to provide enough "liquidity". My worry here is that we cannot even get the easy stuff right - eg the issue of myriad incompatible apps to make the chargers work - it needs to be a simple and ubiquitous experience, like buying fuel. The harder issues, charging points for those who park on the street, and national grid capacity seem to be beyond the delivery capability of UK plc at the moment.
And following on from 2 is the comparison to the horse and cart point. Whilst cars were initially unreliable it was a reasonable assumption that they would soon lead to huge progress (the industrial revolution happened for a reason). So people had a choice, and could migrate when the tech suited them. The same will not be true of electric cars - it is just a fact that longer re-fuelling stops make a journey slower and less convenient than shorter ones. I might want a long break, but I want to choose the duration and location of that break. Therefore, for the first time in living memory, changes are being proposed that will lower our quality of life compared to the recent past, rather than increase it. It might be true that a majority of the public would support this if worldwide action is taken, but there will be no substantive support as long as China and other places don't join in. This problem will worsen as the costs come into sharper focus.
I think the answer is a blend of technologies, rather than sledgehammer solutions like banning the ICE and any policy with the word "zero" in. Like zero Covid, extreme solutions rarely work.
That's not entirely fully true. China is on track to go from 0% to 25% of their total energy from renewable by 2030
Might not sound as good as the UK hitting 50% renewable at times over the summer, but they have a population of over 1 billion and manufacture/export more than pretty much the rest of the world combined. So going to 25% renewable in such a short time is astonishing.
So they are making a massive effort, as with their economies of scale, solar and wind becomes massively cheaper than coal, so makes them more profitable. Plus they can flog excess solar/wind turbines to the rest of the world for even more profit. There is money in 'green' and china fully intends to ride that wave.
Might not sound as good as the UK hitting 50% renewable at times over the summer, but they have a population of over 1 billion and manufacture/export more than pretty much the rest of the world combined. So going to 25% renewable in such a short time is astonishing.
So they are making a massive effort, as with their economies of scale, solar and wind becomes massively cheaper than coal, so makes them more profitable. Plus they can flog excess solar/wind turbines to the rest of the world for even more profit. There is money in 'green' and china fully intends to ride that wave.
Although I do have to respond to this separately.
100% of ICE cars have to use a petrol station. Yet the evidence shows 80% of EV 'refueling' is done at home.
So the requirement to be able to refuel ALL cars on the road with public fast chargers is not needed.
But you are right, the system needs simplifying and standardising. And we do need a lot more public chargers, lamp post chargers, etcetcetc, as more EVs become affordable and others trickle in to the 2nd market, people without a driveway may want to / have to / be forced to adopt evs. Therefore public (and affordable) charging will need to increase
but we don't need a corresponding public charging capacity the same as petrol delivery stations.
Edited to add, my personal solution to alot of the public charging shortage is not necessarily to install more public chargers. Most people drive to work and park at work. Make it a requirement and part of a companies tax burden, or local business tax, to force / encourage them to install large numbers of chargers in their carparks and only charge the EV driver at cost.
If you could own a cheap EV and charge it cheaply whenever you needed to whilst putting in your daily grind, why wouldn't you?
Last edited:
Seems like we are not that far apart - specifically that we agree a major transformation in public charging would be needed. Innovative solutions like your workplace one will be a huge help. Railway station parking would be another example (but can you imagine the companies who run those car parks ever delivering it well ?!)
The 80% figure will likely drop with further take up assuming that those who have EVs now are very likely to be those who can easily charge at home. It is the take up of the less well fitting use cases - in this case long journeys that will provide the challenge and this is where my concern lies - and is the basis for me arguing against a one size fits all solution.
I'd be interested where you got this from. There are so many graphs online and I worry about fake news, but I cannot find one that shows a sign of the turnaround you are suggesting. The broader points about (i) trusting states with questionable governance and (ii) why Britain should progress at a faster pace than most other countries - still hold.
I thought today's quote from Ford illustrated this well. Putting to one side everything else in the PMs announcement, their suggestion that the UK moving to the European timetable for EVs would be so disruptive, when they are clearly trying to sell vehicles worldwide, is pretty absurd.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,588
- Reaction score
- 999
China might be increasing its renewables mix, but it is still being outpaced by its growth in fossil fuel emissions. Just to put it into context China is emitting 11.5 billion tons of CO2 annually and growing at an exponential rate. So whatever China is claiming to be their proportion of renewables then its clearly not enough by a long long way...not even making a dent...and we cant really trust what they claim anyway. They can't even count their population accurately.
The UK is emitting a mere 346 million tons and reducing (though mostly via exporting our CO2 emissions and offsetting by burning more biomass imported for the 4 corners of the globe).
And even if China's emissions do start to tail off and eventually reduce then India is waiting in the wings about 30 years behind so expect exponential growth from India for the next 30 years at least, and their emissions today are 2.7 billion tons a year.
The scale of this is astronomical. It is not a problem the UK can even contribute to fixing. Its futile. Were can't impact it. Our contribution is so tiny it is immeasurable. Its within the measurement error. Even if we could cease CO2 production overnight you couldn't measure the contribution to climate change. Its like farting into a category 6 hurricane that's ripping through a town and trying to determine the additional damage to the town your fart contributed.
Now we say these numbers and they just roll off our shoulders because sometimes they are so incomprehensible and become meaningless, but the difference between a million and billion is vast. A million seconds is 12 days...a billion seconds is 31 years!!
So in seconds our CO2 contribution is 11.4 years and reducing.
China's CO2 contribution is 356 years and increasing exponentially.
The UK is emitting a mere 346 million tons and reducing (though mostly via exporting our CO2 emissions and offsetting by burning more biomass imported for the 4 corners of the globe).
And even if China's emissions do start to tail off and eventually reduce then India is waiting in the wings about 30 years behind so expect exponential growth from India for the next 30 years at least, and their emissions today are 2.7 billion tons a year.
The scale of this is astronomical. It is not a problem the UK can even contribute to fixing. Its futile. Were can't impact it. Our contribution is so tiny it is immeasurable. Its within the measurement error. Even if we could cease CO2 production overnight you couldn't measure the contribution to climate change. Its like farting into a category 6 hurricane that's ripping through a town and trying to determine the additional damage to the town your fart contributed.
Now we say these numbers and they just roll off our shoulders because sometimes they are so incomprehensible and become meaningless, but the difference between a million and billion is vast. A million seconds is 12 days...a billion seconds is 31 years!!
So in seconds our CO2 contribution is 11.4 years and reducing.
China's CO2 contribution is 356 years and increasing exponentially.
so basically we are farting in the wind
Or peeing in the sea
Not true. Chinese emissions are 1% above 2021 rates (according to CREA, Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air) which is hardly exponential.
China is the biggest polluter by a long way, that is true. But to say that the pollution of another country means that we shouldn't do everything we can to reduce our pollution is not reasonable.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 5,189
- Reaction score
- 2,462
If the uk had no cars at all it would make no impact on the environment.
An insignificant environmental impact globally, yes. But if there were no cars in the UK the positive impact on air quality here would be enormous.
I think the challenge here is to define "everything we can". A literal interpretation of that statement would suggest we should reduce emissions at all costs. To take a deliberately extreme example (which I am sure you are not advocating) a permanent lockdown would surely reduce emissions significantly, but at a massive cost to the economy, education, mental health, alcoholism, domestic violence etc etc etc. So we obviously need to find a reasonable approach to this. I would suggest that it is not reasonable to expect the UK to be going way faster than the vast majority of countries, particularly when weighted by population. This is why I feel a balanced approach is needed. As long as we need to have industry, make steel, travel to enrichen our lives, wear clothes, use plastic, enjoy log fires and generally enjoy life, it is pointless to be puritanical about extinguishing every last internal combustion engine and gas boiler.
The biggest thing we could be doing now is building small nuclear power stations. We are about 25 years behind where we need to be on that. Steps like this will ensure that people will support an energy transition, reducing the amount of compulsion needed - which will not work in a free country. Expecting them to lead meagre and hair-shirt lives will not. This particularly applies to the young who have their whole lives ahead of them.
OK, perhaps I should have said 'suggesting we do nothing isn't reasonable'. The post I replied to seemed to suggest that nothing we do will make a difference, therefore there is no point in doing anything. I don't believe that is the case.
Agreed ! And sorry if it looked like I was picking on you. The hysterical media almost never report that we have already done a huge amount in recent decades to reduce our emissions and are way ahead of major polluters. Charts like these really bring home that the global issue is the exponential growth of China and India. Those who really think that the planet is under threat, should surely be treating this as the most urgent issue. The UK has done so much already and the economic damage of lockdown means we cannot afford to keep going faster than most others. Inconvenient truths !
So a truer comparison would be how long does it take to get 200 miles of range in a petrol or electric vehicle and then divide the electric number by five to cater for the fact 80% charge at home. Then that should be you an idea of how many charging points are needed to provide a similar level of convenience to petrol stations. It is more nuanced than that because many EV owners can charge their own ev 24/7 but many petrol stations close overnight.
Whilst the charging at work is a good idea (if you're not retired) we don't have petrol pumps in the office car parks. Because the petrol/diesel infrastructure across the country is developed.
Dont forget people who live in flats and / or those who dont have a driveway. If a black and white 100% electric solution is pursued then they will all need charging points, and this will dramatically reduce the current 80% number - which reflects that those who have voluntarily made the switch are disproportionately likely to have convenient home charging solutions. I am not currently aware of any credible plans to make the charging network suitable for these more difficult use cases.
The latest craze coming to an EV charger near you -
£80,000 - £100,000 damage for a £60 copper wire!
£80,000 - £100,000 damage for a £60 copper wire!
I’m in 6 months with a lease car. Gone from £340/month in diesel to £320/month for a lease car and £0 spent so far on charging thanks to solar at home and free charge at work. Insurance included. Servicing included. Tyres included. 
I’m in 6 months with a lease car. Gone from £340/month in diesel to £320/month for a lease car and £0 spent so far on charging thanks to solar at home and free charge at work. Insurance included. Servicing included. Tyres included.
That's the way to do it. My lease price is up about £60 a month, but my savings on fuel are about £180. Was a no-brainer when I did the sums.
Last edited:
Similar threads
