EV are they worth it?
- Thread starter ericmark
- Start date
There are several reasons for the ban.
Firstly, we have an urban air quality problem that the government is under a High Court order to resolve, and we're killing more people with poor air quality than we are by running them over.
Secondly, we have a climate crisis which we really need to do something about. There's a dwindling number of deniers, clutching at increasingly ludicrous straws, but the majority of the world's population has twigged and we'll be moving on, with or without you, so by all means, stamp your wee foot, stick your bottom lip out, and seethe with impotent rage, but you're going to have to get used to it anyway.
Thirdly, the world has a finite amount of oil, and we're using it much faster than any new oil is being made, so what's left is only going to get more scarce and is largely in the hands of some rather unpleasant regimes who don't like us very much. Naturally, there are folk out there who are too short-sighted to realise that, and they'll be the first in line, crying their backsides off that "the government" should have seen this coming and done something about it years ago...
That's just the way it is, I'm afraid. Naturally, I don't expect you to believe me, but do feel free to bookmark this post, so you can come back to it every 10 years or so
For the record, if another, better alternative to EVs comes along, I'll be very happy to look at it. I really love my old ICE, and (being someone who actually uses an EV pretty much every day), I'm only too aware of their shortcomings (real, ones, rather than BS ones), so I really don't have a problem with new technologies, but right now, they're the best alternative we have.
EVs suffer worse, through active customer refusal.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 10,707
- Reaction score
- 803
- Country
It's a global problem, so you need to look at it globally. Too many people confuse "global warming", with "the weather where you are".
Globally, there's no argument. The world IS a hotter place, on average, than it was 100 years ago. We have the figures. Even most climate change deniers don't dispute that. Instead, they tend to dispute the notion that it's as a result of human activities.
I'm surprised, given your claimed age, that you say you haven't really noticed? Most older folk in this country seem to talk about winters being colder and more snowy, "when they were a lad".
I'm sure you know best! After all, you are a United Nations led international project, contributed to by thousands of highly trained climate scientists, basing your views on peer reviewed scientific papers...
Or am I mistaken? Perhaps we might not place our absolute confidence in some person who doesn't really notice the climate and listen to these people instead?
AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023 — IPCC
www.ipcc.ch
A. Current Status and Trends
Observed Warming and its Causes
A.1 Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally
caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900
in 2011-2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal
historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and
land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions,
between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence).
Observed Warming and its Causes
A.1 Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally
caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900
in 2011-2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal
historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and
land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions,
between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence).
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 24,313
- Reaction score
- 2,777
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
That is too short of a time to draw any conclusions. We know the sea levels have risen and fallen many time without the intervention of man, we also know we have a natural cycle of getting hotter and cooler, we can say mans use of some gases has reduced the size of the ozone layer, so southern hemisphere has got warmer as a result, but look at the output of one eruption and what man produced is nothing in comparison.
That in some areas may be a problem. However slowing the traffic to 50 MPH on a decline as with the Aston by-pass in North Wales is not going to help, and same really in Wrexham, although not to same extent, and it does not say electric cars are exempt from speed limit, so clearly not to get cleaner air.
I would be interested to know what the 20 MPH speed limit has done, but any reduction with transport is likely countered by the increase in wood burning. And the problem is people take unknown wood to burn, some treated, and even laburnum, which is poisonous, and it is well documented on how much cleaner London became with the invention of the motor car and lorry, horses were far worst to the motor car, and out clean air acts did stop the burning of coal, but no one is policing that any more, and to burn wood efficiently with low particular emissions means an after burn or catalytic converter and a set output, which means some storage medium so it can run at set output, these systems are expensive, and people burn wood to save money, so in the main wood burning means pollution, as people can't afford the £15k+ to fit efficient systems.
So all we save using electric cars is lost due to wood burning fires returning. And the cost of making the EV to the environment out weighs any gains made running it, so the environmental gains running electric are cancelled out. As for running cost it is only cheaper due to the tax put on liquid fuel.
There is the possibility of a serious problem with mass ev ownership. It gets mentioned now and again. The national grid wont be able to cope with it. What isn't clear is that people who make this comment have looked at the subject in a sensible way. This could be done by studying fuel consumption by the various motoring sectors.
It has been stated that there is zero interest in updating the grid. More a case of patchwork and mostly leaving it as it is.
The other aspect is the cost of an EV. Chances are that if the motor industry want to continue to make similar numbers of cars lower range ones are likely to appear. Range more associated with typical commuting distances. But interest in hydrogen grows. Not a problem given sufficient cheap electricity.
It has been stated that there is zero interest in updating the grid. More a case of patchwork and mostly leaving it as it is.
The other aspect is the cost of an EV. Chances are that if the motor industry want to continue to make similar numbers of cars lower range ones are likely to appear. Range more associated with typical commuting distances. But interest in hydrogen grows. Not a problem given sufficient cheap electricity.
The sale of new ones can be banned easily, but even if not it changes nothing.
Most vehicle manufacturers are already on the journey to 100% electric vehicles over the next 5-10 years regardless of any government bans or restrictions.
Those which are not will be out of business in the same timeframe.
Existing ICE vehicles can and already are being made unattractive and expensive by low and zero emission zones in places like London, Oxford, Bath, Sheffield and others.
National Grid themselves say otherwise.
Totally wrong. £Billions are spent on the electricity grid every year.
The grid is not some fixed thing which was completed decades ago and has just sat there, it's being upgraded, expanded and changed all the time.
Hydrogen for vehicles is finished.
Cheap electricity changes nothing, as regardless of how cheap it is, the manufacture, storage and distribution of hydrogen is a massively inefficient and expensive process.
LOL. If your talking about the capacity of electricity that can be delivered to people houses you are totally wrong.
Hence the slow increase in stations where hydrogen driven electric cars can be filled. Also a country that is biasing things very much in that direction.
Really - show me some evidence.
Hundreds of scientists have considered your concerns when writing their report. Thousands of species of plants and animals have been going extinct for millennia due to natural processes, but that does not disprove man's involvement in extinction more recently, through destruction of habitat and so on.
In the case of sea level changes (or other climate indicators), there are well-understood factors leading to the change in temperature over tens of thousands of years, chiefly periodic (regular) changes in the orbital configuration of the Earth around the Sun (for example, wobbles in the tilt of the axis of the Earth ("obliquity") and precessional cycles (changing the point in the year when the Earth is closest to the Sun, and how circular the orbit is). But the changes in global temperature since the pre-industrial period (let's say 1850) are much more rapid than the changes due to orbital forcing: StephenStephen has quoted the numbers above, 1.1degC estimate warming due to human activity since the pre-industrial, at the time of writing the most recent report. It gets worse: the true warming due to CO2 alone is still being masked by around 0.4degC due to our other emissions, chiefly sulphur dioxide.
The ozone layer is a key example in which science-led advice has led to policy change, leading to a recovery in the ozone hole since the Montreal Protocol. A major difference is the cost: it was relatively straightforward to come to international agreement restricting the use of CFCs, since it loads no obvious inconvenience on the everyday person. CO2 reductions (ultimately to net zero emissions, at which further warming will cease), on the other hand, require major changes that affect every sector of society. That's why governments drag their heels.
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 24,313
- Reaction score
- 2,777
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
This may well be the case, my three story house has a 60 amp supply, as are most in the estate, when built they had Wylex fuse boxes only rated at 60 amp, so could not have fitted 100 amp even if they wanted to, my house could likely have an 80 amp fuse fitted, but not a 100 amp as the consumer unit is only rated at 100 amp and the solar panels can produce nearly 20 amp so if a 100 amp DNO fuse fitted it could mean 120 amp at the CU, yes easy enough to fit a 100 amp fuse of my own, but the problem is one does not stop using the electric car in the winter.
Solar only 290 watt today OK daylight did start increasing 2 days ago, but this time of year solar is minimal, and anyone with heat pumps are using likely the maximum power a domestic supply can handle.
On their own I would see no problem with EV's being charged at home, but all heat pumps to the equation, then looking at split phase or three phase supplies, this means digging up the supply cables to each house and renewing, it has taken months just to get a smart meter, as to getting a larger supply that's simply cloud cook coo land.