Electric Cars

There is always exaggeration - and most comes from those that either don’t know or don’t want to know.

At the end of the day the only thing that matters is wether people can afford to buy an EV particularly when over a very short period of time petrol, diesel and gas vehicles will depreciate rapidly such that they will not be able to use them as a trade in making it even more expensive to buy a EV or Hybrid.

Martin P

Edited By martin perman on 12/07/2019 08:43:08

I think that's very likely. As always with change, some people will do well and others will come unstuck. In life I've always tried to steer a middle course. I avoid being an early adopter of expensive unreliable new ideas, and I avoid clinging to obsolete junk beyond the point of no return.

What happened to film cameras when digital arrived is a clue. T'other day I came across an old forum (circa 2000) where photo-enthusiasts were earnestly explaining why inferior digital carp would never replace their expensive camera bodies, lens-outfits, and favourite film emulsions / papers and chemical processes. Today few still use film photography and most of the kit has lost it's value. What's a bit scary is that good digital cameras - SLR bodies and exchangeable lens - are now facing stiff competition from mobile phones, which take remarkably good pictures. Cars are likely to follow the same trajectory and clinging hopefully to fading technology is probably not good strategy. I recently bought a new car, it's petrol, because - at the moment - they are cheap, and there's a good chance it will see me to the end of my career as a driver before fuel prices go through the roof. (I guess this will take 10 to 15 years). But the calculation was a close run thing, and I suspect if I'd reached 'replace car' point in 2022 rather than 2018, the decision would have been different. Part of that would be, 'buying new in 2022 what do I expect the trade-in value of an IC car to be in 2027, and does it matter to me?'. Youngsters will have far more trouble than today's pensioners. If I'm stuck with a scrap-value only IC car in 2030 because petrol is unaffordable, it won't matter much because health will be taking me off the road anyway. Much more difficult for a 30 year old tradesman who depends on a White Van to earn a living.

Dave

Yes agree.

However, perhaps someone can explain why electricity is considered so clean when, at any time, more is produced from nuclear than from any other source. Taking the whole life cycle, isn't this the dirtiest way by far?

Taking electricity produced by nuclear and putting it into batteries (again very dirty over the whole life cycle) - is that really an improvement?

Does anyone know the service costs on EV’s? Garages obviously can’t charge £40 for five quids worth of oil anymore so where is the rip off going to come from. Some kind of very expensive battery “conditioning” or something similar I suppose.

Really? Mine is very quiet and certainly not smelly. Engine is CAT6 + and the car was voted as the least polluting by Which magazine last year. When you measure and compare fuel efficiency you must take everything into consideration, something often ignored by the new 'clean' angels!

The debate on pollution is getting as bad as the Brexit one. Fact is, no one knows what the best answer is. Lifestyles cannot change overnight; poor nations will want their share of prosperity, and Governments the world over will still want to 'screw' the population for as much money as they can by blaming, or wanting to suppress something or other. The congestion charge in London has made no difference other than filling the Council's bank account.

Politicians in general are pretty thick in my view and will jump on any 'band wagon', usually to further their own interests!

Electricity isn't 'clean', it's less filthy than the alternatives. A big advantage is it doesn't pollute in crowded city centres.

Nuclear is problematic because the waste remains dangerous for a long time. It can't be dumped into the atmosphere and ignored. Fortunately nuclear isn't the main source of electricity. In the UK, roughly 40% gas, 30% renewable, 20% Nuclear, 1% coal, and 7% imported. (The 7% imported may be mostly nuclear, but nuclear power is still contributing less than renewable sources.)

In future - wild guess - I'd expect Nuclear to take a larger share of the base load at the expense of gas, and for renewables to provide most of the rest. We will have to grit our teeth and manage the risks. On the other hand, while renewable electricity can never be completely 'clean', it's less harmful than all the alternatives. Time will tell if there are any hidden gotchas, but on the face of it electricity is the way to go.

Perhaps the most important point is that renewable electricity has plenty of room for improvement. Exact opposite with fossil fuels, once they're all burnt it's game over.

Dave

As I understand it, one function of petrol powered car catalytic exhausts is pollution reduction - BUT to be effective, they need to be at working temperature. Diesels, on the other hand, operate at a similar level throughout. The majority of car journeys are short distance, shopping etc. For me, the Q.E.D is obvious but not to our 'Leaders', indeed it's not ever mentioned in the various discussions. Thoughts??

rgds

Bill

Not much different or the garage goes bust!

Insurers first and foremost charge based on replacement cost, then risk or they go bust.

The whole thing will be shaped by the money so I'm going to go and find where my Afghan coat went cos the 70's are coming back complete with random power blackouts caused this time by selfish model engineers running machine shops stopping the rich from charging their car.

The nukes are there. They might as well be used until the clean-up time comes around (decommissioning).

No way is nuclear always the largest supply to the UK network. Just look at Gridwatch UK, as you clearly need to be educated?) Gas generation trounces it, wind often exceeds nuclear (for long periods in the winter months) and solar eclipses it, most days, for several hours during the summer at least.

Renewables will be increasing - far beyond the Hinkley new build output by the time that comes on line, if ever.

The only problem with renewables is that they are not constant, but that could change if tidal sources were utilised (they can be accurately forecast years in advance!)

EVERYTHING is better than using up the remains of fossil fuels (to make electricity or fuel for automotives) which is clearly causing atmospheric problems.

Cutting down the rain forests is not exactly helping, either - another load of idiots putting short term profit before long term climate stability.

H*ll, the railways have been steadily electrified for umpteen decades now. Nobody gives that a thumbs down!

It's an interesting question and a little bit of an unknown. I can only speak with any knowledge re the Tesla. They used to do an annual service package that was hardly cheap at some £500 that claimed to check all the vehicles logs and alignments etc but a few months ago they changed their model to 'no service needed unless you think it does'. That's going to be a combination of they got too busy dealng with new sales and warranty issues with limited facilities and a reflection of finding out how reliable their latest generation motors are. they've increased the time to battery coolant change to some 8 yrs too.

Paradoxically the most needed service item is checking brake calipers for issues due to lack of use (less common UK than flat parts of the states). When mine comes up to a year old I'll insist on a survey of wear items and alignment checks 'cos these days they can do all the log checks remotely anyway.

I find it quite amusing how defensive Diesel drivers are. I think I’ve heard every possible argument for keeping them. Whilst I expect there may be a glimmer of hope for some petrol engined cars I think folks need to get over the fact that sooner or later you won’t be able to buy a Diesel car. As Diesel cars die of natural death or are forcibly crushed I would expect Diesel fuel prices will go up before perhaps becoming largely unavailable for car drivers. Of course we could all be wrong and perhaps all the £Billions being spent on Electric car development is just some cunning ploy. If Diesel engines are so clean, remind me again why Volkswagen had to break the law in order to sell their cars? So far VW alone have paid out £25 Billion in fines in the US for their stinky cars.

"Garages obviously can’t charge £40 for five quids worth of oil anymore "

Hey, that's cheap, a mate has been quoted £1000 to change his diesel particulate filter. (Perhaps it's because it's a "people's" car).

Regards Ian..

All IC engines perform badly from a cold start; I'm not aware that diesels are much less polluting than petrol on short journeys. They're both poor. Good news: the future is bright for chaps only doing short journeys because electric cars are ideal for them. Zero start-up pollution, able to use cheap renewable energy, and no worries about battery capacity for trips of less than 150 miles.

As to our leaders, they have access to top-quality advice. Unfortunately, most shy away from implementing unpopular policies until it is bleeding obvious to voters they are absolutely essential. As most voters only support measures they imagine won't impact on them, there is a strong tendency for politicians to kick cans down the road. Turkeys won't vote for Christmas, which is why MPs are currently doing everything they can to avoid a general election. They know they've managed to thoroughly annoy almost everyone!

Dave

I am at a loss to understand how they are going to replace ALL the diesel lorries that are used for carriage of goods to electric. Also how are they going to get an electric Bulldozer or a JCB unless diesel. In fact any earthmover?

Will they have electric Tanks for the military? and criuse liners and warships and cargo ships in general. It is now said that Aircraft are one of the main polluters, can i see long distance travel curtailed by planes? Yet they want to build another runway at Heathrow. Already a hefty tax on flights when you travel.

One thing I have found is that not all diesel fuels are the same, I revcently had to use a Shell garage to fill up.

A few miles down the road on comes the Catalyst light telling me to do some 40 miles at 40mph to burn off the dust. So thats another gallon gone up in smoke. Having a cat. 6 engine is great but this sort of thing annoys me.

They will use legislation to make their point leaving us in the lurch again ( As per Brown telling us to buy diesel)

If I use public transport to go to town it takes 1.5 hrs. and I visit every part of the area to get there. By car I can do it in 10 mins. Not only that the bus hurts my back. Already Councils are upping parking charges to deter town visits and they wonder why the High street shops are closing.

Yes, until they reach catalyst light off temperature, petrols and diesels do pollute more than their "dirty" older sisters.

Hence all the gadgets that increase the fuelling to light off the catalyst, or regenerate the DPF.

(And we know what major problems that caused for certain makes and models )

So a modern car doing short runs is worse for the environment than an older "dirtier" car on a long journey, and returns a far worse mpg.

The Perkins Prima was taken off the market because it could not pass the emissions test. The cat needs 250C to light off. The Prima was so efficient that the average exhaust temperature during the emissions test was 150C, so the catalyst never got to do its job!

Our last two petrols had the catalyst incorporated into the exhaust manifold, to minimise time to light off.

Maybe "lean burn" was the technique that should have been pursued, but that did not call for quantities of very expensive metals in a catalyst.

Who would ever have imagined that we now dose our fuel with mouse drippings to benefit the environment?

Howard

Yes I agree, politicians never think things through.....ever! I live not far from the largest container port in the country, and the number of HGV's using the A14 and the A12 to and from the port has become unbearable. The largest ships carry in excess of 18500 containers and the majority travel by road. There is a rail link direct to the dock but it's only one track. There is room for a double, but no one is interested in spending any money (apart from HS2 of course, which will only carry passengers).

When the Orwell bridge is closed for high winds; crashes and breakdowns, all traffic has to go through Ipswich and the whole area for miles around becomes gridlocked for hours. I'm sometimes trapped in my village all day while crash investigations are carried out. Pollution doesn't seem to matter only when it suits them.

Several parishes and business leaders are campaigning for another route around the town, but one of the local MP's (Tory) is opposing it and the land is owned by ex MP's (Tory) and large estates.

Transport in the UK is in a total mess, so I suppose blaming things on the consumer as always creates a diversion from the actual cause of the problem. I shall continue to use my Diesel car, it's the cleanest currently available, gives a fantastic burn rate of fuel and automatically cleans the filter etc. £20 per year road tax as well!

It's a very good question, and coming up with answers will make somebody rich! At the moment diesel serves us well. Magic liquid comes out of a hole in the ground and a bit of clever chemistry and mechanical engineering gives us cheap transport. Paradise, except for two different unpleasant realities. One is that 250 years of burning carbon is damaging food production due to extreme weather, particularly severe floods and droughts. It could get bad enough to displace billions of people. Second is that oil is running out, and it could reduce to a trickle within my children's lifetime. This also could be catastrophic!

Whatever the answer is it's not to carry on as we are. Even if we put up with climate change, mineral oil is on the decline.

On a bad day I think the outlook is grim. I imagine the total collapse of civilisation, a global famine, massive social disturbances and a return to poverty and basic agriculture. On a good day, I think people will adapt to whatever they have. Electronics & good communications reduce the need for personal travel, ships and heavy machinery run on biofuels, and solar power gives us the cheap energy needed to live in luxury. Only one thing is certain, life in 100 years will be different! But that's nothing new, my grandfathers world in 1919 was very different from mine in 2019, and his world was nothing like the England of 1818.

Chaps worried about uncomfortable public transport, not being able to carry large dogs, having to wait for a recharge, and not taking caravan holidays might consider the effect expensive oil could have on the value of their property. I live in a village handy for city workers. It's only handy by car! Conceivably I could find myself living in a village full of abandoned houses. If you don't believe it have a look at what happened to Detroit and to certain parts of England where people have the misfortune to live too far away from work opportunities.

Interesting times ahead!

Dave

.

Probably not

My logic being that military users already have dispensation to use [for example] Asbestos and Cadmium, if technically justifiable; which are banned for civilian use.

Hydrocarbon stocks will last much longer if restricted to miltary use.

MichaelG.

I presume all these thoughts and contraries stem from the minds of those only living in first world, crowded, green cities and villages, all linked by nice tarred roads, working sewage systems and piped water, with door to door deliveries and cell phone connection all day and everywhere??

What about the rest of the ordinary world? When Britain, America, and I presume most of Europe goes electric ( whatever that means..) , and diesels are outlawed, or at the very best, severely diminished, what do we do in Africa?

All very well being electric in Johannesburg, or Cape town, etc... I live in Namibia, and together with many people here, have to travel vast distances, with many gravel roads, and not many fuel stops, with over 90% of electricity imported from Zambia and South Africa. And South Africa is in deep dwang with Escom almost bankrupt, and with an electrical production capability some 60% of what South Africa needs.

I am quite active in the conservation arena ( Big Cats) and in my 'work' travel for 7 to 10 days at a time, 8 to 10 times a year, in areas not seeing ANY fuel stops at all. I travel in a 4.2L straight Six BIG Diesel Land cruiser, and have enough in the aux tanks to do 1800km. I have to survive out in the nowhere for 10 days, food, water, fuel, tyres, etc. Many Tour operators endure the same issue. 60% of Namibia's income is Wildlife tourism. If you travel to the Northen areas here, some of the more popular tourist destinations - Sesfontein being very popular, there are 2 (YES , TWO!) fuel stops between Swakopmund ( where I live) , and Sesfontein, some 600km - One 70km from Swakopmund, and one in Sesfontein - the latter having no fuel 2 out of 5 visits...Transport of good in Namibia, indeed in Africa, is over 1000's of kilometers, rough roads, NO ELECTRICITY in sight, few fuel stops...

The gravel roads chew tires - 3 out of five 2000km trips I replace at least one tyre - torn to shreds.

Electric is a non-starter in this country, so all that will happen is that the cost of IC engined vehicle for sale in this country ( and ALL of Africa) will simply rocket since the world wide sales will be down due to the greens..Diesel will STILL be produced, but consumption will be limited due to non-use by the greenies, and so the cost per liter will likewise rocket.

So in the end, the third world countries will simply become poorer, tourism will decline as it will cost more, tanking water by road to 10's of thousands of locals in very remote villages during the drought will diminish, ( and we are in a severe drought, deepening now for 2 years running).

Even the one and only train between Windhoek and Swakopmund is Damn Big Diesel.

And this scenario is not unique to Namibia - many parts of the rest of Africa are in much poorer shape!

But then Trump did call us the Sh1thole of Africa...

Its all well to be so close minded and think only of solutions for yourself. Its also nice to sit in a comfy armchair, believing that the all the other things - like wildlife conservation, the bush of Africa, etc, are being taken care of by 'someone else'...

Far to easy to be dogmatic about 'going green' when the biggest stress in your life is a trip down the road to the Fish and Chip shop... I understand the need to change, and that a cities vehicle traffic is destroying the Earths Lungs, but huge improvements can be made by the worlds leading countries by looking at the major problem contributors first, like air travel ( but that would hurt those who live in their armchairs) , shipping, etc...Taking the selfish and easy political simpler route is just that - selfish, as well as narrow minded.

My Rant..

Joe