Volkswagen: UK motorists begin mass claim over emissions scandal

AdrianC

Johno100 wrote: »

I thought nuclear energy was considered a green alternative to fossil fuels by all but the most extreme tree huggers.

Nuclear has merits, but practicalities mean it's probably not the future, at least in its current form..

Q3 of this year marked a big turning point - Excluding nuclear completely, renewables produced more electricity in the UK than fossil, with the turning point around 40% each. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time

'course, that's only happened by shifting a lot of fossil-burning power stations to biomass, which has big environmental question marks of its own - since a non-trivial chunk of the fuel is imported by oil-burning ship from the far side of the world...
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/aburningissuebiomassisthebiggestsourceofrenewableenergyconsumedintheuk/2019-08-30

Aylesbury_Duck

Indeed. The classification of "biomass" fuels and their production and export is a con.

AdrianC

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Indeed. The classification of "biomass" fuels and their production and export is a con.

No, it's definitely not that simple.

I've got several surplus very large fir trees. They're worthless as firewood or timber. I'm in the throes of arranging for them to be taken and chipped as biomass.

But exporting half-way across the world by ship? Greenwash.

DrEskimo

motorguy wrote: »

I would suggest that the majority of people could make / be making more ethical choices in their life that dont involve yet another car on the roads, particularly one using up valuable earth resources in order to make its batteries. And whats ethical about driving an EV if the electric is generated using fossil or nuclear fuel anyway?

Frankly debating the merits of any particular car fuel is a bit like debating what form of cancer is best to die from.

Many of the rare metals that people are pointing the finger at for EV's using are also used in the production of running of ICE.

For example cobalt is a metal used to create a catalyst for the desuphurisation of fuel production:

https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/desulphurisation.html

The main difference of course being that, as with most of the ICE car, the materials are burnt and therefore only used once. In contrast, the cobalt used in the formulation of a battery will last 10, 20years before either being recycled or repurposed into another function (i.e. power storage) for it's second life.

In literally every respect, an EV is a more efficient and resourceful use of materials and has the capability of running from a low carbon power source. Whilst that may not be true right now, it is rapidly becoming true as the grid decarbonises.

Suggesting that EV's are similar and therefore it doesn't matter is plain wrong. Moving away from private car ownership would present a more substantial solution to the issue (and many others), but that is certainly not a simple thing to implement and therefore transitioning away from ICE to EV provides a useful method to reducing the impact of private transportation.

AdrianC

I think you might be being a tad disingenuous there. The average new EV uses about 10kg of cobalt. How much is used for fuel desulphurisation, averaged out per car-lifetime? (Remember diesel fuel is also used for many non-private car - even non-transport - uses)

motorguy

DrEskimo wrote: »

Many of the rare metals that people are pointing the finger at for EV's using are also used in the production of running of ICE.

For example cobalt is a metal used to create a catalyst for the desuphurisation of fuel production:

https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/desulphurisation.html

The main difference of course being that, as with most of the ICE car, the materials are burnt and therefore only used once. In contrast, the cobalt used in the formulation of a battery will last 10, 20years before either being recycled or repurposed into another function (i.e. power storage) for it's second life.

In literally every respect, an EV is a more efficient and resourceful use of materials and has the capability of running from a low carbon power source. Whilst that may not be true right now, it is rapidly becoming true as the grid decarbonises.

Suggesting that EV's are similar and therefore it doesn't matter is plain wrong. Moving away from private car ownership would present a more substantial solution to the issue (and many others), but that is certainly not a simple thing to implement and therefore transitioning away from ICE to EV provides a useful method to reducing the impact of private transportation.

I agree with a lot of that, however lets not accuse people of being unethical because they havent went out and bought an EV, when EVs arent the answer either.

We've gone in to a rabbit hole here about EVs when this thread is about the VW emissions "scandal" which has done little other than let SevenHills off the hook as to where the material loss is for VW owners?

DrEskimo

AdrianC wrote: »

I think you might be being a tad disingenuous there. The average new EV uses about 10kg of cobalt. How much is used for fuel desulphurisation, averaged out per car-lifetime? (Remember diesel fuel is also used for many non-private car - even non-transport - uses)

It's an excellent question, and something I've tried to research, but to no avail.

I was initially reluctant to post it due to this, but then decided to for the following reason:
People do not criticise the use of 'rare earth metals' in EV's due to their quantity, but merely for their use at all. Many (myself included) are not aware how common these materials are in other aspects of their life, and typically use the broad brush approach that since the supply chain often involves the use of child labour and very questionable work practices in deprived areas (a VERY valid concern, regardless of how it is used I hasten to add), that therefore EV's pose ethical considerations of their own that ICE do not. Clearly, this is not true.

So personally, I think the answer to your question is, it's irrelevant. The issue still needs addressing either way.

The question is rarely what is the perfect solution, but rather, what is a better solution. Personally I think EV's are, and for a number of other reasons too.

motorguy wrote: »

I agree with a lot of that, however lets not accuse people of being unethical because they havent went out and bought an EV, when EVs arent the answer either.

We've gone in to a rabbit hole here about EVs when this thread is about the VW emissions "scandal" which has done little other than let SevenHills off the hook as to where the material loss is for VW owners?

True, and this will be last post on the matter in this thread.

As above, I still maintain that EV's are an answer, if not for that specific question!

Although, I prepose that Car54's question does not logically follow from SevenHills statement, so I don't think anyone has accused buyer's of non-EV's as being unethical. SevenHills was pointing to the fact that some buyers are motivated to buy EV's due to ethical concerns over emissions, therefore may feel aggrieved by the actions of VW with respect to emissions (for the record I do not think that is sufficient grounds for compensation, and agree the whole case is nothing more than a money-grabbing exercise for solicitors).

However, just because SevenHills asserts that A = B, that does not automatically assume B = A, as Car54 asked. To me, the answer to his question (Are you suggesting that those of us who choose not to buy EVs are in some way unethical?) is 'No'.

Car_54

DrEskimo wrote: »

However, just because SevenHills asserts that A = B, that does not automatically assume B = A, as Car54 asked. To me, the answer to his question (Are you suggesting that those of us who choose not to buy EVs are in some way unethical?) is 'No'.

You are of course right, and I'm guilty of a lapse of logic.


What actually prompted me to post was the use of the term 'ethical'. This correctly applies to situations where there is a recognised code of behaviour (e.g. medicine, the legal profession), but seems to be have been hijacked by various groups who have their own ideas about what is right or wrong and seek to stigmatise anyone who disagrees (or even is seen to be less than enthusiastic).


Perhaps the term 'sanctimonious' is more appropriate.

AdrianC

DrEskimo wrote: »

People do not criticise the use of 'rare earth metals' in EV's due to their quantity, but merely for their use at all. Many (myself included) are not aware how common these materials are in other aspects of their life

Lithium Ion battery chemistry is pretty much generic. More than that, many EVs use totally generic 18650-format cells, same as in laptop battery packs, cheap ebay torches and the like.

It's just a case of scale. EV battery packs contain quite literally thousands of those generic little cells...

DrEskimo

Car_54 wrote: »

You are of course right, and I'm guilty of a lapse of logic.


What actually prompted me to post was the use of the term 'ethical'. This correctly applies to situations where there is a recognised code of behaviour (e.g. medicine, the legal profession), but seems to be have been hijacked by various groups who have their own ideas about what is right or wrong and seek to stigmatise anyone who disagrees (or even is seen to be less than enthusiastic).


Perhaps the term 'sanctimonious' is more appropriate.

Ah fair enough. I agree, that doesn't help anything! Plenty of legitimate reasons why people may want to transition, but can't (even if I do think they tend to be overstated and misunderstood...although I'm potentially biased in my view of the debate!).

AdrianC wrote: »

Lithium Ion battery chemistry is pretty much generic. More than that, many EVs use totally generic 18650-format cells, same as in laptop battery packs, cheap ebay torches and the like.

It's just a case of scale. EV battery packs contain quite literally thousands of those generic little cells...

Absolutely. The scale does of course present real challenges, and I sorely hope that as supply chains are ramped up to meet increasing demands, they are done so in a ethically and sustainable way. I appreciate the issue is extremely complex though when it comes to sourcing raw materials. I remember a documentary looking at how Apple try to ensure materials are sustainable and ethically sourced, and tracing each individual bit of material used was near impossible given the socioeconomic and geopolitical context in which those mines were operated.

Development in battery chemistry and moving away from those materials could be one solution.

Sorry...that's it I promise. Back to cursing at ambulance chasing lawyers and deplorable acts by large car manufacturing firms....