There are a lot of electric cars near me now as my area is full of Guardian reading vegan hippies and plenty of charging points.
There is a Tesla that often charges round the corner and the registration basically says "NO GAS" I won't say the exact plate. While it is true no emissions come out of the car, how do these people think the electricity that goes into the car is made? If we look here at the time of writing almost 50% of the electricity generated in the UK is made by burning gas, more so if we include other fossil fuels such as coal.
www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Do people really think electricity is made by magic or wind? To me all electric cars do is move the pollution problem else where, although maybe they are generally cleaner and more efficient. My mate had an electric BMW but god rid of it as we couldn't drive outside of Manchester in fear of running out of power.
Sorry just wanted a little rant :)
|
They are the same people that think the lights will be kept on with a few windmills.
|
But I suppose if you've got money to waste on these things, why not. If I had the space to park one and they were, say, less than £10k then for some of my short journeys shopping they'd be a novelty.
However, they're too quiet and I nearly got run over (not really) by one as I lingered in the roadway and one crept up on me - eerily quiet at low speeds.
|
>>they're too quiet and I nearly got run over (not really) by one as I lingered in the roadway and one crept up on me - eerily quiet at low speeds.
= = => www.bootshearingcare.com/hearing-tests/
|
Simple solution, in the pedestrianised village of Zermatt they use milk floats to transfer luggage between the station and hotels. They are fitted with cow bells.
|
I was driving a Lexus hybrid a few years ago, and nearly ran over a copper in the carpark at the local traffic department. PAAAAARP!
He jumped out of his skin.
Rattle, all electric cars do is make the pollution in one place and reduce it in another. It is all about inner-city smugness, and NIMBYism.
|
"Rattle, all electric cars do is make the pollution in one place and reduce it in another."
Not entirely. About half of the electricity generated is by "clean" means, either nuclear or renewables.
The other factor is of course that most people live in cities so they are the ones affected to the greatest extent by releasing large volumes of pollution in a small area. It obviously makes sense to reduce the overall amount of pollution and not have that pollution concentrated in city streets.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 15 Aug 16 at 18:13
|
For the 'EV thing' to work, you need either to use your car only for short journeys from home, or have a charging point available where you regularly go, such as at work. So no good if Granny, 200 miles away, falls ill suddenly: the charging points at motorway service areas will be occupied, or out of order, or both - as well as now being charged for and thus more expensive than a gallon of petrol or diesel. And what do you do if Granny lives in Lesser Puddlemarsh, miles from the nearest motorway or other service area?
EVs are at their best if your journeys are in towns and cities - right? Only for some: most town-dwellers have to park their cars on the street. So how do you charge your EV? Run the cable from the kitchen window? From a seventeenth-floor flat? Even from a ground-floor power-point, you run the cable across the pavement, where an old lady trips over it, hurts herself and sues you. Or a group of merry young people on the way back from the pub think it would be a jolly jape to unplug the cable and see if it'll fit through the next car's fuel filler.
Even if batteries are developed so as to last much longer, some of the above problems are still there. I think the future has to lie elsewhere: fuel cells perhaps in time, but meanwhile we need to rely on good old diesel and the growing number of high-efficiency petrol engines such as the VW Group's TSI and TFSI series.
|
Hands up those who would buy an out of warranty used car with a tiny petrol engine turbo charged to within an inch of its life.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Mon 15 Aug 16 at 20:28
|
So a 1.4t petrol with 150PS is no good? But would a 2.0t petrol with 217PS be okay?
|
Generally on cars a bit small for me, but i wouldn't avoid one.
|
But do the maths between the VAG 1.4 TFSI and 2.0 TFSI.... the latter is available with over 300PS too. So I can't see why the smaller engine has a problem.
Couple it with a dry clutch 7-speed DSG and I'd avoid it personally.
|
This was my dilemma while I've been looking at one of the GT R-Lines, either go for petrol and the 7-speed dry clutch, or stick with diesel and the wet clutch (which is what I'm used to now).
|
>> Hands up those who would buy an out of warranty used car with a tiny
>> petrol engine turbo charged to within an inch of its life.
>>
I would. VAG have been churning out smallish capacity turbos for years with no big horror stories. I had a 1.8T A3 with 225K on it that ran well enough, and they were knocking those out tuned to 240 BHP over 10 years ago. Technology and manufacturing processes improve year on year so why would today's engines be so much worse?
|
A good point. I don't think I would swap 20 year old technology for today's.
|
My car has a non turbo petrol engine, it has variable timing on both camshafts, variable valve lift on the intake camshaft, can run on the Atkinson or Otto cycle, and is averaging 50 mpg in mixed use on a less than 500 mile tight engine. That's enough technology for me.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Tue 16 Aug 16 at 13:18
|
I wasn't going to post on this thread, as the questions/statements about EVs have been done to death and the answers are all out there with a second's search, but interestingly MIT have today published their latest thoughts.
Executive summary - in the US (at least) EV's are probably a good thing.
phys.org/news/2016-08-electric-vehicles-drivers-percent-road.html
|
They didn't ask me, and we are going to have a problem keeping the lights on without tens of thousands of electric cars.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Tue 16 Aug 16 at 14:15
|
In this Robert Llewellyn video made in 2012, the National Grid chap talks about "perhaps half a million electric vehicles on UK roads by 2020" and was entirely sanguine about that and the ability to cope happily enough.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX0G9F42puY
Whether in 2016 they are now more/less/as happy about the idea as they were in 2012 I don't know.
|
Of course there's a saving to using less petrol and diesel. All those refineries and associated infrastructure don't run on fresh air.
|
I know Nigel very well, if he said its ok, then its ok. And the planning cycle is so long and so robust, that things wouldn't get wobbly in 4 years.
National Grid is superb at electricity transmission and the relevant demands. There are other things about it that I'm not so keen on, but it is a most effective organisation at its primary role.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 16 Aug 16 at 15:01
|
>> They didn't ask me, and we are going to have a problem keeping the lights
>> on without tens of thousands of electric cars.
>>
Expecting a phone call were we?
;)
|
The results of research tends to reflect the source of the funding.
|
Where was the source of funding in this case?
|
I don't know, but would expect some tree hugging outfit. :-)
|
No one has mentioned the old joke about Californian ZEV(zero emission vehicle)-an electric car powered by electricity generated in Nevada.
|
>> No one has mentioned the old joke about Californian ZEV(zero emission vehicle)-an electric car powered
>> by electricity generated in Nevada.
>>
This Navajo owned coal fueled power station near Page, Arizona was producing vast amounts of smoke when I was in the area.
www.ngspower.com/default.aspx
|
I had understood that the stuff which comes out of power station chimneys was more of a steam than smoke (presumably from cooling towers). But I suppose it depends how they are generating.
I used to live a few miles from the Richborough power station in Kent and they started burning something organic which dropped particles of crap over a wide distance. I'm not sure it was actually harmful but it was certainly messy...
|
>> I had understood that the stuff which comes out of power station chimneys was more
>> of a steam than smoke (presumably from cooling towers). But I suppose it depends how
>> they are generating.
Take a look at the one at Page on Google imagees. The town of Page was built to house the workers building the Glen Canyon Dam. Similar to the Hoover Dam it generates vast amounts of electricity. The Navajo Generating Station is on the Navajo reservation.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Wed 17 Aug 16 at 16:40
|
>> I don't know, but would expect some tree hugging outfit. :-)
>>
Ahh i don't agree with it so it must be duff. Gotcha
;)
|
Correct, tempered by having been around long enough and travelled enough to be a bit cynical.
|
What if the MIT report is true though?
|
No chance, a days air raids in Syria do more damage to the environment than I will create in a lifetime, tons of jet fuel, a fleet of ships in support, chemical weapons, explosives, fires.
I can do without narrow minded people preaching their car hating policies.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Tue 16 Aug 16 at 19:54
|
Rather than being negative perhaps you might suggest an alternative plan for drastically reducing pollution in our cities .
|
Please don't move to upper Ribblesdale. We have sufficient ex townies, myself included, clogging up the pubs and hogging the log fire in winter.
|
I have not lived in a city for decades and will not be moving back. Odd how city dwellers complain about the pollution they inflict on themselves.
|
I happened to go to the viewing park at Manchester airport yesterday morning. You could smell the kerosene in the air as SOME planes were taking off... but not all. I didn't check the age of the planes that smelt more of 'paraffin' than others.
|
I returned a rental car to Heathrow before flying up here when I used to fly South regularly. It was a still, hot, summer afternoon. The whole area reeked of burnt and raw jet fuel. Not somewhere I would choose to live.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Tue 16 Aug 16 at 20:42
|
>> The whole area reeked of burnt and raw jet fuel. Not somewhere I would choose to live.
When it rains under the takeoff path, which is very wide, the road becomes incredibly slippery with the amalgam of raw jet fuel and water. I sometimes wonder how many people it's killed and how many jalopies it's wrecked.
|
>> I returned a rental car to Heathrow before flying up here when I used to
>> fly South regularly. Not somewhere I would choose to live.
The feeling is mutual, I am sure.
|
>> The feeling is mutual, I am sure.
>>
I lived in London for 20 years, and visit it regularly, there are better places to live.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Tue 16 Aug 16 at 22:51
|
Not really the point though is it?
Assuming you agree that it would be highly desirable to reduce urban pollution how would you go about it.
|
>> you might suggest an alternative plan for drastically reducing pollution in our cities
Lost cause. What's wrong with a bit of pollution anyway? Modern man needs electricity, and don't forget that volcanoes spew millions of tons of filth into the air. The human contribution is negligible.
(come on chaps, let's hear it for 'natural forces')
|
The title of this thread has been annoying me. Surely the word is 'electricity'?
|
Electric is the Manchester version. :-)
|
>> Electric is the Manchester version. :-)
Surely there must be at least a few literate Mancunians? I had a Mancunian friend who was a right ponce about that sort of thing. He was very irritating but I'm sorry he's dead.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 16 Aug 16 at 20:54
|
Don't remember any volcanoes in London when I lived there. Have any erupted lately?
|
I seem to remember air travel being shut down by an Icelandic volcano a few years ago. Before that Mount St Helens (?) in the Rockies did the same, also some in Indonesia.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Tue 16 Aug 16 at 21:21
|
You asked about volcanoes.
|
No, I asked for a suggestion as to how urban pollution could be reducesd since you do not believe in electric vehicles.
|
I don't give a toss about urban pollution, I don't cause it or suffer from it. I have just bought my first petrol car for over 30 years, it has a Euro 6 engine, I don't know or care if it pollutes more or less than a diesel but it is the best option for me.
|
The green lobby needs a stick to beat folk with, to make themselves look so righteous.
If/when it isn't cars any more, It'll be something else.
Ever noticed how a lot of these Prius drivers have 5 kids?
(and often a massive Harley for the weekend?)
|
>>you might suggest an alternative plan for drastically reducing pollution in our cities
Make the central area (say 5mls diameter) of the cities Bicycle only, (except for Goods vehicles) and replace Taxi's with Rickshaws! ;-). Most people could manage to cycle the last few miles, would help the Gov reduce obesity instead of the half-hearted plans they intend to unveil today and might slow the world down a bit to boot!
I think the "Boris-bikes" in London were on the right lines, just needed the idea developing more......
|
Electric bikes could do more for health than electric cars. Cycling is fine but it is hard work for us ordinary mortals with everyday clobber in any area that isn't almost completely flat.
I like to cycle but arriving in a muck sweat isn't always what I want.
|
>>I like to cycle but arriving in a muck sweat isn't always what I want.
So you could be a Rickshaw customer then, let somebody else get you there in a muck-sweat! ;-)
|
>> Make the central area (say 5mls diameter) of the cities Bicycle only
You've pretty well described what Cambridge is about to do. All main roads and the ring road to be prohibited to cars (during rush hours), and only one road in and out of the city open for commuters. Who are also going to be paying a workplace parking levy, if of course, they can get to their workplace at all.
But the buses will now be on time. Allegedly. No nasty cars in the way anymore, you see.
|
Noted that Cambridge is almost completely flat!
|
>> No chance, a days air raids in Syria do more damage to the environment than
>> I will create in a lifetime, tons of jet fuel, a fleet of ships in
>> support, chemical weapons, explosives, fires.
>>
>> I can do without narrow minded people preaching their car hating policies.
>>
I take it you didn't actually read the summary.
|
Yes I read it, at least they realise that battery cars are not the answer for all circumstances. I still think there is a car hating tree hugger agenda in there somewhere.
|
They are saying switching powering cars from one energy source to another is viable. Not sure why you want to read some mysterious agenda into it?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 16 Aug 16 at 22:40
|
>> I can do without narrow minded people preaching their car hating policies.
That was not aimed at the MIT summary. :-)
|
Ahh right. Makes more sense now.
|