I need your opinion

Scrapit

DrEskimo said:

Scrapit said:

DrEskimo said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

No, that's just greenwashing. You are not counting all the costs of production of raw materials, it's a very selective assessment.

Well how much does that produce? 

I don't know about 1950s land rover but 1998 one produces 262g/km. Ignoring the fact that over 50,000 miles the emissions will be much greater than that, as people don't drive like the testing procedure, that itself will be over 21tonnes of CO2. That also ignores the extraction, refinement and transportation of fuel.

We can take your 15 tonnes (which I deeply dispute as you have yet to provide any sources for it. The report I linked suggests something like my Zoe produced in France would be closer to 10 tonnes) for the production of the entire EV.
As for energy to drive it 50,000 miles, that would require 12,500kWh of energy assuming my average of 4miles/kWh. Accounting for 10% charging loses, that's 13,750kWh. Today the average CO2/kWh in the UK is 256g, however many would charge off peak when it's cheaper, and the CO2/kWh is typically between 50-100g CO2/kWh. So that would be around 0.6-1.3 tonnes.
So the EV is anywhere from 10.6-16.3 tonnes, whereas the 1998 Land Rover tailpipe emissions alone are 21 tonnes (assuming it's driven like the test procedure for the entire 50,000 miles).

Still think it's green washing?

Yes.
Also if the landy is run on veggie where does that leave us?

Yes, as in yes it is still green wash? Care to elaborate...?

Running on veggie oil will have little impact on tail pipe emissions with regard to CO2 (or indeed other emissions).

Clearly. Yes, greenwashing.
And your understanding of the emissions of carbon is failing if you dont understand the effect of plant growth and use on it.

DrEskimo

Scrapit said:

DrEskimo said:

Scrapit said:

DrEskimo said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

No, that's just greenwashing. You are not counting all the costs of production of raw materials, it's a very selective assessment.

Well how much does that produce? 

I don't know about 1950s land rover but 1998 one produces 262g/km. Ignoring the fact that over 50,000 miles the emissions will be much greater than that, as people don't drive like the testing procedure, that itself will be over 21tonnes of CO2. That also ignores the extraction, refinement and transportation of fuel.

We can take your 15 tonnes (which I deeply dispute as you have yet to provide any sources for it. The report I linked suggests something like my Zoe produced in France would be closer to 10 tonnes) for the production of the entire EV.
As for energy to drive it 50,000 miles, that would require 12,500kWh of energy assuming my average of 4miles/kWh. Accounting for 10% charging loses, that's 13,750kWh. Today the average CO2/kWh in the UK is 256g, however many would charge off peak when it's cheaper, and the CO2/kWh is typically between 50-100g CO2/kWh. So that would be around 0.6-1.3 tonnes.
So the EV is anywhere from 10.6-16.3 tonnes, whereas the 1998 Land Rover tailpipe emissions alone are 21 tonnes (assuming it's driven like the test procedure for the entire 50,000 miles).

Still think it's green washing?

Yes.
Also if the landy is run on veggie where does that leave us?

Yes, as in yes it is still green wash? Care to elaborate...?

Running on veggie oil will have little impact on tail pipe emissions with regard to CO2 (or indeed other emissions).

Clearly. Yes, greenwashing.
And your understanding of the emissions of carbon is failing if you dont understand the effect of plant growth and use on it.

Well I look forward to your detailed post helping me with my understanding, complete with reputable sources.

Mickey666

Hunyani_Flight_825 said:

Petriix said:

.....as part of a general move to reduce our impact, switching to an EV will certainly be a positive step in comparison to continuing to use diesel. 

What about the child Mica miners (as a single example there are many more) in places like Madagascar, do they not figure in the pursuit of your EV revolution ?

 As I have said before EV is the Betamax of personal transportation.

Not a particularly useful analogy.  Betamax was technically superior in almost every way to VHS and really only failed because of the vagaries of the video rental market.
I get that you're not a fan of EVs but let's debate the issue sensibly.

Scrapit

DrEskimo said:

Scrapit said:

DrEskimo said:

Scrapit said:

DrEskimo said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

No, that's just greenwashing. You are not counting all the costs of production of raw materials, it's a very selective assessment.

Well how much does that produce? 

I don't know about 1950s land rover but 1998 one produces 262g/km. Ignoring the fact that over 50,000 miles the emissions will be much greater than that, as people don't drive like the testing procedure, that itself will be over 21tonnes of CO2. That also ignores the extraction, refinement and transportation of fuel.

We can take your 15 tonnes (which I deeply dispute as you have yet to provide any sources for it. The report I linked suggests something like my Zoe produced in France would be closer to 10 tonnes) for the production of the entire EV.
As for energy to drive it 50,000 miles, that would require 12,500kWh of energy assuming my average of 4miles/kWh. Accounting for 10% charging loses, that's 13,750kWh. Today the average CO2/kWh in the UK is 256g, however many would charge off peak when it's cheaper, and the CO2/kWh is typically between 50-100g CO2/kWh. So that would be around 0.6-1.3 tonnes.
So the EV is anywhere from 10.6-16.3 tonnes, whereas the 1998 Land Rover tailpipe emissions alone are 21 tonnes (assuming it's driven like the test procedure for the entire 50,000 miles).

Still think it's green washing?

Yes.
Also if the landy is run on veggie where does that leave us?

Yes, as in yes it is still green wash? Care to elaborate...?

Running on veggie oil will have little impact on tail pipe emissions with regard to CO2 (or indeed other emissions).

Clearly. Yes, greenwashing.
And your understanding of the emissions of carbon is failing if you dont understand the effect of plant growth and use on it.

Well I look forward to your detailed post helping me with my understanding, complete with reputable sources.

Well look on, you'll be waiting a very long time. However if you aren't aware of the source of carbon released in burning VO  then you aren't aware of the carbon cycle. No sources, no details, just a suggestion to research.

Grumpy_chap

Betamax failed because Sony were not willing to licence the technology whereas JVC licensed VHS.

Mickey666

fred246 said:

Most of the journeys that these cars end up doing could easily be done on a bicycle. If only there was the political will to enable it.

Whenever I've delved into such claims, 'most of the journeys' seems to be based on distance with no consideration to the purpose of the journey or the nature of the person doing the journeying.  So yes, it's quite easy for a fit individual to cycle three miles to buy a loaf (or whatever), but quite another to do the weekly shop.  Or if the person was, say, over SRA.  And what about all the other things that people need to carry in their cars that couldn't be carried on a bike?
I'm not suggesting that 'a lot' of journeys could not be easily done by bike, but 'most' seems somewhat fanciful.

Supersonos

ontheroad1970 said:

Hunyani_Flight_825 said:

Petriix said:

.....as part of a general move to reduce our impact, switching to an EV will certainly be a positive step in comparison to continuing to use diesel. 

What about the child Mica miners (as a single example there are many more) in places like Madagascar, do they not figure in the pursuit of your EV revolution ?

 As I have said before EV is the Betamax of personal transportation.

 Broadcast companies continued (and continue still) to use Betamax tapes for years to come.  

They most certainly did not.  Betamax was technically superior to VHS, but nowhere near broadcast quality.  You're confusing Betamax with Betacam - a totally different format (although in the same sized cassette).  

Mickey666

Grumpy_chap said:

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

Yes, that is correct.  Certainly not "greenwashing".

When I was at University, they had a whole programme that did LCA Life Cycle Analysis and, generally, for items such as cars, washing machines, TVs, where there was technological development, the amount of embedded energy / carbon in manufacturing unit product was a small fraction of the total energy / carbon of the product throughout the full life cycle and therefore a nett environmental benefit did come from getting new and saving the impacts through operational life.

At that time, the comparisons were all a "modern" ICE versus old ICE.  ICE efficiency has continued to evolve even further and, obviously, the calculations for EV will be different.  The same principles of how to do the analysis would be the same and I am sure suitable peer-reviewed reports are available if they are searched out.

The other benefit of EV over ICE is that an EV can be operated from green energy, whereas an ICE can only be operated from fossil fuels.  I accept that current infrastructure means that a high proportion of EV miles are from fossil-fuel derived energy, but that situation will improve.

These debates are all very interesting but they are ultimately futile because the ICE is a dying technology, just like horse-drawn narrowboats and steam locomotives.  Or, more accurately, fossil fuel powered ICEs.  And the reason is quite simple - fossil fuels are going to disappear as an energy resource.  We can all argue over the timescale but it WILL happen . . . and I'm not talking about 'running out' of fossils fuels because that won't happen for a very long time.  I'm talking about fossil fuels as an ENERGY resource.

It takes a lot of energy to extract and refine and transport fossil fuels, so when the energy cost of all that equals the energy released from the fuel itself then it's a break even situation, ie there is NO nett energy gain from using fossil fuels.  This will happen way, way before fossil fuels actually run out.  Indeed it's already happening.  The 'low-hanging fruit' has already been 'picked' and many easy, cheap, oil resources have already been fully exploited.  But human ingenuity and improving technology means we can now exploit those previously inaccessible oil/gas resources - offshore wells, deep water wells, antarctic wells etc.  But these more difficult to access resources require more energy to exploit, so the energy returns are lower. 

Eventually, it will require as much energy to extract fossil fuels are they release when burned.  At that point they are no longer a source of energy - a source on which our entire global economy and civilisation has been built with and is dependent on.  It's as if we only earn minimum wage but had a windfall on the lottery - the fossil fuel lottery.  Well, we've lived the high life on that windfall but it's coming to an end and then we'll be back to 'minimum wage' again . . . or in other words, dependent on ecological sustainability.  We may be able to string out fossil fuels a bit longer if we're sensible enough, but ultimately it's going to happen.

DrEskimo

Scrapit said:

DrEskimo said:

Scrapit said:

DrEskimo said:

Scrapit said:

DrEskimo said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

No, that's just greenwashing. You are not counting all the costs of production of raw materials, it's a very selective assessment.

Well how much does that produce? 

I don't know about 1950s land rover but 1998 one produces 262g/km. Ignoring the fact that over 50,000 miles the emissions will be much greater than that, as people don't drive like the testing procedure, that itself will be over 21tonnes of CO2. That also ignores the extraction, refinement and transportation of fuel.

We can take your 15 tonnes (which I deeply dispute as you have yet to provide any sources for it. The report I linked suggests something like my Zoe produced in France would be closer to 10 tonnes) for the production of the entire EV.
As for energy to drive it 50,000 miles, that would require 12,500kWh of energy assuming my average of 4miles/kWh. Accounting for 10% charging loses, that's 13,750kWh. Today the average CO2/kWh in the UK is 256g, however many would charge off peak when it's cheaper, and the CO2/kWh is typically between 50-100g CO2/kWh. So that would be around 0.6-1.3 tonnes.
So the EV is anywhere from 10.6-16.3 tonnes, whereas the 1998 Land Rover tailpipe emissions alone are 21 tonnes (assuming it's driven like the test procedure for the entire 50,000 miles).

Still think it's green washing?

Yes.
Also if the landy is run on veggie where does that leave us?

Yes, as in yes it is still green wash? Care to elaborate...?

Running on veggie oil will have little impact on tail pipe emissions with regard to CO2 (or indeed other emissions).

Clearly. Yes, greenwashing.
And your understanding of the emissions of carbon is failing if you dont understand the effect of plant growth and use on it.

Well I look forward to your detailed post helping me with my understanding, complete with reputable sources.

Well look on, you'll be waiting a very long time. However if you aren't aware of the source of carbon released in burning VO  then you aren't aware of the carbon cycle. No sources, no details, just a suggestion to research.

I didn't mean your comment about vegetable oil. I meant my explanation as to how running an old diesel Land Rover produced more CO2 than a new EV over 50,000 miles. You suggested that it was still 'clearly' greenwashing and I yet won't elaborate on how?

I don't know anything about vegetable oil I'm afraid, but will look into it.

AdrianC

DrEskimo said:

Running on veggie oil will have little impact on tail pipe emissions with regard to CO2 (or indeed other emissions).

Apart from the minor detail about short- vs long-term carbon cycles.