Have we ever been in a worse car buying era I don't know where to turn next.

henry24

Mildly_Miffed said:

henry24 said:

That Volvo digger could be a good machine and you appear to know how machines work in construction unlike a ex driver like myself so maybe you could explain how you charge machines up on sites without any power which most don't have, yes you could change power packs but your going to need a lot of power charging maybe 10 at a time.

If you'd bothered to read the linked site, you'd have seen about the 10ft container "power unit" that Volvo also supply, with 50% more battery capacity than the digger. 7t weight, so three of them can be delivered to site on a single artic.

https://www.volvoce.com/europe/en/about-us/news/2023/volvo-powers-up-for-ec230-electric-and-l120h-electric-conversion/

I did read the link but I still don't understand how you are going to keep moving and charging 7 ton battery packs on sites without a electric supply 

subjecttocontract

Mildly_Miffed said:

Except for the minor detail that fossil fuels aren't paying their true environmental cost.

You're right - mitigating climate change requires investment. But nowhere NEAR as much as dealing with the consequences if we don't.

But you and people like you who are totally committed to moving away from fossil fuels won't do it any quicker by getting annoyed with those who don't share your dream. You can't bully people into joining your gang if they don't want to. It doesn't matter how passionate your argument, if it doesn't make financial sense, it aint gonna happen anywhere near as quickly as you might like.

Car_54

henry24 said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

henry24 said:

Without the diesel and oil engines we wouldn't have homes, transport, food, heating and many other things 

A century ago: "Without horses, we wouldn't have homes, transport, food, heating, and many other things"

Sixty years ago: "Without coal, we wouldn't have homes, transport, food, heating, and many other things"

The world moves forwards.

Sixty years ago people travelled using diesel trains,

True, but still largely steam. And electric.

Mildly_Miffed

subjecttocontract said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Except for the minor detail that fossil fuels aren't paying their true environmental cost.

You're right - mitigating climate change requires investment. But nowhere NEAR as much as dealing with the consequences if we don't.

But you and people like you who are totally committed to moving away from fossil fuels won't do it any quicker by getting annoyed with those who don't share your dream.

A quick question, if I may...

Do you think that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing?

henry24

I can't remember when we stopped using steam trains but they was coal powered just as the electric ones were powered by coal power station 

henry24

I'm not against electric vehicles I just don't think they are suitable for me and many like me. The amount of times I've seen ev supporters wanting government help for ev buyers is ridiculous they should be sold on equal terms as ice cars and if better the public will buy them. We keep getting told that people moved on from horses but that was because petrol was better people aren't moving to electric because of the problems 

motorguy

henry24 said:

I'm not against electric vehicles I just don't think they are suitable for me and many like me. The amount of times I've seen ev supporters wanting government help for ev buyers is ridiculous they should be sold on equal terms as ice cars and if better the public will buy them. We keep getting told that people moved on from horses but that was because petrol was better people aren't moving to electric because of the problems 

Thats odd because i hear people say that they'd buy an EV but they are "too expensive"?  So lets have an incentive scheme and they will then be sold on equal terms?

I dont get the "because of the problems" comment.  What problems?  Even in present form EVs would work for quite a percentage of people but they currently chose not to make the move, for various reasons.

Also they're not EV "supporters".  Its not a club.  There are people who can see and have taken advantage of the merits of EVs.  And you dont have to "support" one side or the other.  Its possible to see the merits of both EVs and ICE.  Its also possible to prefer one and not get angry about the other.

Fundamentally we need to move away from burning the earths resources to move people about in their personal transport boxes.  EVs will move us in that direction.

Iceweasel

Most main-line electric train engines were diesel-electric back in the 60s and 70s.

henry24

Could EVs be expensive because they cost more to make? Why should I as a tax payer subsidise someone else's car? How is that equal?
If people don't see any problems with EVs then they will have know problems selling them 

Ectophile

henry24 said:

Could EVs be expensive because they cost more to make? Why should I as a tax payer subsidise someone else's car? How is that equal?

The "legacy" automakers are still treating EVs as a niche.  They don't know how to make them cheaply in volume, and haven't built strong enough relationships with the new suppliers.  And, quite frankly, they really don't want to make them if they can make more profit from a petrol or diesel.

Instead, they keep lobbying governments to water down or put back any targets.

Meanwhile, in China, BYD made 207,734 electric vehicles in December alone.  That's one company in one month.

That's because when the chinese government says that China is switching to EVs, then manufacturers had better switch to EVs or go out of business.

If we could buy those cars over here at the prices that Chinese consumers pay, then nobody would want the over-priced rubbish that the European or Japanese auto makers produce.  The Chinese customers are rapidly switching away from imported cars.