Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Towtug

Electric/Hybrid vehicles

Recommended Posts

I think BP purchasing the charge master network tells us all we need to know about the future potential around access.

 

Unlike the storyline in The Man with the Golden Gun where Scaramanga was paid to steal the Solex by oil companies to ensure people kept buying oil, the companies are beginning to invest and work on diversification of energy; early days, but it’s starting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These threads always make me think of  two cliches

 

1.   A man’s reach should exceeds his grasp

 

2. We shouldn’t let the perfect to be enemy of the good.  

 

I also also observe that by amazing coincidence the same people who 10 years ago who were posting that there is no such thing as climate change.  Are the very same ones who now say we can’t do anything because (insert reason here).  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fred said:

These threads always make me think of  two cliches

 

1.   A man’s reach should exceeds his grasp

 

2. We shouldn’t let the perfect to be enemy of the good.  

 

I also also observe that by amazing coincidence the same people who 10 years ago who were posting that there is no such thing as climate change.  Are the very same ones who now say we can’t do anything because (insert reason here).  

 

I don't think many people will argue that there isn't climate change, the issue is around what is causing it.

 

Where would we be now if there had been protesters trying to prevent the Ice Age, and what would they have blamed the ice melting on, according to history ( from where?) something happened to make the planet warm up, and it certainly wasn't humans!


"Experts" measure in hundreds of years what has actually evolved over thousands of years, and use computer models and predictions (based on algorithms created by humans - read fallible) to predict what they though happened millions of years ago.

 

Every government across the world will say (and do) the minimum they can to be seen to be doing something.

 

In reality commerce drives their decisions, if it didn't why do the penalise the motorist whilst leaving road transport, marine, aircraft rtc alone,the  simple answer is because whilst it affects the man/woman in the street, they cannot afford to upset the movers and shakers of industry.

 

Unfortunately humanity is arrogant enough to believe they are big enough to cause such a thing as climate change, and worse still that they believe they have the power to change it, stop it or turn it around.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just bought a new Hybrid as a runabout, Iam very pleased with it at over 60mpg its helpful on the pocket. Iam surprised that no one has mentioned tidal power, it never stops, we ie,  Britain is surrounded by it, its very powerful, but I dont know the costs or the marine life's implication's of it. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stevan said:

I only disagree with a few words, the utterly groundless assertion that "the future is a lot closer than we think"!

Before EVs become the vehicle of choice for many more than the 0.7% reportedly buying them  it will be necessary for the industry to overcome both the actual and perceived drawbacks:-

1. The need to cover a high mileage to enable the low running cost per mile to outweigh the higher fixed costs.

2. The availability of numerically sufficient charging points. We only have assumptions that these will increase ahead of car sales, if they don't this will be a severe blocker to sales.

3. The availability of sufficiently convenient charging points.

4. The perceived range issues.

 

Pass me the rose tinted spectacles!

 

 

Aren't your points 2 and 3 the same? 

 

I suppose we should at least be grateful that you haven't yet brought out your 'cables covered in dog wee' argument on this thread!

 

Also, why let the facts get in the way of your (repeatedly) wrong assertion that EV sales are 0.7%.

 

Rose tinted spectacles?  It's the blinkers for you!

 

image.png.e344bbc76359d3575742bbc13d8cfd81.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nosnibora said:

Having just bought a new Hybrid as a runabout, Iam very pleased with it at over 60mpg its helpful on the pocket. Iam surprised that no one has mentioned tidal power, it never stops, we ie,  Britain is surrounded by it, its very powerful, but I dont know the costs or the marine life's implication's of it. Just a thought.

Hybrids are great IF your driving pattern fits their strengths.

Tidal power has a huge impact on all kind of wildlife around the estuaries concerned.

Like most renewables though, with the exception of hydro, it cannot maintain a 24/7 supply, and even combining it with wind and solar still does not guarantee 24/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Grandpa Steve said:

 

I don't think many people will argue that there isn't climate change, the issue is around what is causing it.

 

Where would we be now if there had been protesters trying to prevent the Ice Age, and what would they have blamed the ice melting on, according to history ( from where?) something happened to make the planet warm up, and it certainly wasn't humans!


"Experts" measure in hundreds of years what has actually evolved over thousands of years, and use computer models and predictions (based on algorithms created by humans - read fallible) to predict what they though happened millions of years ago.

 

Every government across the world will say (and do) the minimum they can to be seen to be doing something.

 

In reality commerce drives their decisions, if it didn't why do the penalise the motorist whilst leaving road transport, marine, aircraft rtc alone,the  simple answer is because whilst it affects the man/woman in the street, they cannot afford to upset the movers and shakers of industry.

 

Unfortunately humanity is arrogant enough to believe they are big enough to cause such a thing as climate change, and worse still that they believe they have the power to change it, stop it or turn it around.

 

 

Nope.   There is consensus that climate change is real and caused by man’s activity.   I don’t actually think you need to be a rocket scientist to realise this.   However if you do happen need a Rocket scientist to prove the point then maybe this link will be of interest.  https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Alternatively you may wish to believe the likes of Donald Trump, Lord Lawson or Piers Corbyn (yes he is related).  

This raises for me an interesting question. Let’s ignore the 97% scientific consensus and assume that the Donald is correct and man made climate change is a myth.  What would be the consequences of acting of like climate change is real?   Compared to Donald, Nige and Piers are wrong and we take no action?

9 minutes ago, Cabbage Patch said:

 

Also, why let the facts get in the way of your (repeatedly) wrong assertion that EV sales are 0.7%.

 

 

But to be fair everyone knows that 98.73% of statistics are made up.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Cabbage Patch said:

 

Aren't your points 2 and 3 the same? 

 

 

No! Having enough charging points does not help much if they are not conveniently placed, such as in the wrong hotel car park.

Having them conveniently placed is not much use unless there are enough to avoid queueing.

 

It has taken over100 years for existing filling stations to arrive at the network we now have, and still it is easy to get caught out in an evening away from major A roads by many not being open at night.

It will take many years for EV charging availability to reach a satisfactory level of maturity.

Edited by Stevan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cabbage Patch said:

Also, why let the facts get in the way of your (repeatedly) wrong assertion that EV sales are 0.7%.

 

OK! using the data you quote 0.9%. I should have said "Less than 1%".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fred said:

Nope.   There is consensus that climate change is real and caused by man’s activity.   I don’t actually think you need to be a rocket scientist to realise this.   However if you do happen need a Rocket scientist to prove the point then maybe this link will be of interest.  https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

So if that really is the case why are they only penalising the little man around vehicle emissions, and not tackling the big polluters such as shipping and aircraft.

 

One ship sailing, or one 747 on one flight consumes more fuel and probably emits more pollution than one car in several years of use.

 

Quote

 

Alternatively you may wish to believe the likes of Donald Trump, Lord Lawson or Piers Corbyn (yes he is related).  

This raises for me an interesting question. Let’s ignore the 97% scientific consensus and assume that the Donald is correct and man made climate change is a myth.  What would be the consequences of acting of like climate change is real?   Compared to Donald, Nige and Piers are wrong and we take no action?

 

If the reasoning behind believing it is honourable and is really about "saving the planet" then there is nothing wrong with the plan, but when all it is seen to be is just another way of taxing/penalising the man/woman in the street then no it is not.

 

Councils are trying to be zero carbon emissions neutral in built up areas, how are they doing it, by banning cars or imposing congestion charges, instead of finding ways to move the traffic more quickly out of the areas.

 

Speed bumps, traffic lights, 20 mph speed limits all contribute to ensuring vehicles travel more slowly through an area.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grandpa Steve said:

One ship sailing, or one 747 on one flight consumes more fuel and probably emits more pollution than one car in several years of use.

As I understand it, ships are actually one of the least polluting forms of transport if you calculate it in terms of tonnes of freight and miles travelled.

 

1 hour ago, Grandpa Steve said:

Speed bumps, traffic lights, 20 mph speed limits all contribute to ensuring vehicles travel more slowly through an area.

Speed bumps and traffic lights serve to promote the speed up and slow down type of driving that is least efficient and most polluting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grandpa Steve said:

 

So if that really is the case why are they only penalising the little man around vehicle emissions, and not tackling the big polluters such as shipping and aircraft.

 

One ship sailing, or one 747 on one flight consumes more fuel and probably emits more pollution than one car in several years of use.

 

 

If the reasoning behind believing it is honourable and is really about "saving the planet" then there is nothing wrong with the plan, but when all it is seen to be is just another way of taxing/penalising the man/woman in the street then no it is not.

 

Councils are trying to be zero carbon emissions neutral in built up areas, how are they doing it, by banning cars or imposing congestion charges, instead of finding ways to move the traffic more quickly out of the areas.

 

Speed bumps, traffic lights, 20 mph speed limits all contribute to ensuring vehicles travel more slowly through an area.

May be it’s just me but haven’t you switched the focus of your argument?  In your earlier post you seemed to be saying that man made climate change didn’t exist so there was no need to do anything.  In this post the argument has shifted to it might exist, but I can’t do anything.  

Btw afaik speed bumps have little,  to do with emissions but try to make the streets safer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EV is coming, how fast is down to money and very little to do with climate change. If politicians are given incentives from manufacturers like a job as a special adviser on them pay roll things will move more quickly. If stuff was bad why not ban it like smoking or cars , money simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grandpa Steve said:

So if that really is the case why are they only penalising the little man around vehicle emissions, and not tackling the big polluters such as shipping and aircraft.

 

That doesn’t represent the truth though, plenty is being done about larger emitters of pollution and some of it incredibly stringent. We are investing hugely over the next 5 years to meet the Medium Combustive Plant Directive (MCPD).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electricity distribution certainly has a long way to go to match the petroleum industry.

 

Only when we have electricity to every home and business in the country, as we do with the national petrol network, can we say that it is truly convenient.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, svimes said:

Electricity distribution certainly has a long way to go to match the petroleum industry.

 

Only when we have electricity to every home and business in the country, as we do with the national petrol network, can we say that it is truly convenient.

 

😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, svimes said:

Electricity distribution certainly has a long way to go to match the petroleum industry.

 

Only when we have electricity to every home and business in the country, as we do with the national petrol network, can we say that it is truly convenient.

 

Although get everyone to switch to EV tomorrow  and see how long that electrical system to every house stays on.

 

Lee

Edited by logiclee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Grandpa Steve said:

 

So if that really is the case why are they only penalising the little man around vehicle emissions, and not tackling the big polluters such as shipping and aircraft.

 

One ship sailing, or one 747 on one flight consumes more fuel and probably emits more pollution than one car in several years of use.

 

 

If the reasoning behind believing it is honourable and is really about "saving the planet" then there is nothing wrong with the plan, but when all it is seen to be is just another way of taxing/penalising the man/woman in the street then no it is not.

 

Councils are trying to be zero carbon emissions neutral in built up areas, how are they doing it, by banning cars or imposing congestion charges, instead of finding ways to move the traffic more quickly out of the areas.

 

Speed bumps, traffic lights, 20 mph speed limits all contribute to ensuring vehicles travel more slowly through an area.

 

The biggest problem is population growth ... You can't keep powering transport with fossil fuels to an ever growing & out of control population.

 

Your internal combustion engines are dying rapidly. There's no new development with them at all in future prototypes with motor manufactures. 

 

Time to embrasse the EV .. you'll love it 😂 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fred said:

May be it’s just me but haven’t you switched the focus of your argument?  In your earlier post you seemed to be saying that man made climate change didn’t exist so there was no need to do anything.  In this post the argument has shifted to it might exist, but I can’t do anything.  

Btw afaik speed bumps have little,  to do with emissions but try to make the streets safer. 

 

Err no, I have not said it might exist, I am saying that if your theory exists why not deal with the biggest polluters.

 

Speed bumps add to the pollution, as drivers accelerate up to the bumps, brake to go over them and then accelerate away from them, so in fact they do more harm than good, but the road safety campaigners have conflict because they want the best of both worlds, slower traffic for safety, but less pollution, a conflict of requirements.

1 hour ago, FrankBullet said:

 

That doesn’t represent the truth though, plenty is being done about larger emitters of pollution and some of it incredibly stringent. We are investing hugely over the next 5 years to meet the Medium Combustive Plant Directive (MCPD).

 

...and how does that include aircraft and shipping?

 

Regardless of anything else, if the UK became carbon neutral just how much would we reduce the amount emissions across the world, as I read somewhere that our  contribution to the world's pollution is less than 1%.

 

Noble intentions wasted on a world that talks the talk but never walks the walk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, logiclee said:

 

Although get everyone to switch to EV tomorrow  and see how long that electrical system to every house stays on.

 

Lee

 

Is everyone switching over tomorrow? I missed that memo! Someone should tell the manufacturers!

 

Assuming the low output overnight chargers, it would be like each house leaving a kettle running overnight (on the nights they needed a charge).

 

We run two cars and, assuming a 200 mile range,each one would need to be charged about twice a week, assuming no charges elsewhere. That is quite a drain, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Silverback said:

Time to embrasse the EV .. you'll love it 😂 

 

Tried it on 3 occasions a Lexus CT200, a Lexus RX400 and a Lexus RX450, I  now have a Mercedes GLC 250d which is far better on fuel economy (by 15 mpg in town and nearer 20 mpg on a run) than any of the Lexus, hybrid or hype?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, logiclee said:

 

UK charging infrastructure is not good enough and a rip off.

A good video to watch, thank you for posting. The ipace is a good car, over the 800 miles trip it needed 6 charges, a few of the chargers did not work at all so had to try elsewhere, some slow to charge (about 2 hours and not for a full charge) so overall the many charges took many hours making the travel time a lot more than most would accept. The chargers were around 36 p per kwh and the car gave about 37 kw per 100 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kelper said:

In the future, we may have to give up the luxury of unlimited range that the ICE gives us.  Longer journeys will have to be by train and completed with a hire car.  It's just a matter of changing the norm.  We will adapt.  Once petrol and diesel are phased out we will just accept some limitations on long journeys.

They need to build a railway station near where I live first :).

 

Nearest is 50 miles away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Grandpa Steve said:

So if that really is the case why are they only penalising the little man around vehicle emissions, and not tackling the big polluters such as shipping and aircraft.

 

Your comment ‘such as big polluters’, not exclusively shopping and aircraft

 

I gave you an example of how big polluters are being tackled.

 

Still work to do, does that mean we all point at somebody else, blame them and decide to do nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FrankBullet said:

 

 

Your comment ‘such as big polluters’, not exclusively shopping and aircraft

 

I gave you an example of how big polluters are being tackled.

 

Still work to do, does that mean we all point at somebody else, blame them and decide to do nothing?

 

We can spend billions on this and our impact will be not far off zero.

 

So a lot of work, a lot of money for little to see for it, as despite what any UK environmentalist thinks we are a very small tadpole in a very large pond.

 

Effort vs Cost vs Outcome - a lot of people will spend a lot of money to feel good about what they have done, but the actual impact will be negligible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...