Electric cars

AdrianC wrote: »

And you don't see any potential problem with that at all...?.

You're the one who sees problems as if they are all insoluble.

Tyre sizes, really? People are going to go round gaming the system by changing their tyre sizes? The few cars with no speedos or changed odometers are a significant problem that can't be dealt with in some way?

It's patently obvious you've set your mind against electric vehicles. I've no idea what work you do but dismissive attitudes and raising problems without suggesting solutions have never been a positive in any job I've ever done.

AdrianC wrote: »

No, I'm suggesting that asking people to self-report their mileage for road pricing is massively open to gaming. Those are two perfectly legitimate ways in which it simply won't be effective. There are a myriad of other, less legitimate ways. Just search eBay for "mileage correction", if you don't believe me.

And that's before we consider the potential benefits of the infrastructure to support road pricing - applying variable pricing to adjust people's usage, making heavily congested roads and prime-time use more expensive than other roads and times. Think of it as the Ryanair ticket pricing model.


I haven't, actually. I just don't easily buy hype, especially when the reality doesn't back it up.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me restate where I sit...
Electric vehicles are simply not ready to replace the highest mileage cars on our roads - and they're the ones that produce the most emissions. They are nowhere near ready to replace commercial vehicles. They are nowhere near ready to replace normal cars for most people's edge-case use, even if they are for their routine use.
The infrastructure is not in place to address those issues, and basic laws of physics cannot be easily ignored.
Many of the uses for which electric cars currently provide the biggest wins - shorter journeys and urban usage, especially - would be better addressed by replacing the typical car with other forms of transport completely, not just by different cars.
They may well provide localised air quality benefits, but the vast majority of our electricity generation is no lower in carbon emissions than what is being replaced. Not only that, but we are already facing shortfalls in electricity generation capacity, which are only going to worsen in the short-to-medium future, even on current demand levels.

Ultimately, what people seem to forget is that electricity is a way of moving and temporarily storing energy, not a source of energy, while fossil fuels are (in anything but the very, very longest timescales) a source.


I've always found that denying the existence of very real issues in order to support a preconceived, preferred solution is the real problem, tbh.

Hi

So in summary, in raising issues above "as if they are all insoluble", it's "patently obvious you've set your mind against electric vehicles", thus fully supporting silverwhistle's view ...

Simple solutions apply to most of the issues raised, most of which require little more than minor changes to existing legislation, some of which are already in the pipe-line, so no great issue for anyone with an open-mind or solution based background ...

Reality is based on evidence, evidence is supportable ... EVs are here, and there are more and more of them out there, evidence for which isn't only available through looking at statistics, we can all see them with our own eyes ... there were four parked within an area which is smaller than my front garden yesterday, so it can't be denied!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981 wrote: »

EV's are proving to be cheaper to run, already, than ICE cars, so as their price falls, the benefits will only grow.

But how does that work when the price of electricity rises due to demand from millions of electric cars - someone has to pay for new power stations to be built and the national grid to be beefed up and for new charging stations etc.

How will the loss of fuel duty, road tax and VAT be made up? Presumably there'll have to be hefty new taxes on electric cars instead?

What happens when government subsidies are withdrawn?

Considering that the roll out of digital radio and turning off analogue radio has been delayed time and time again and now seems to be kicked into the long grass, I don't think we'll be seeing the majority of cars being electric any time soon. If something "simple" and relatively cheap like digital radio conversion couldn't be achieved, there's little hope for electric cars for a generation or two.

AdrianC wrote: »

I haven't, actually. I just don't easily buy hype, especially when the reality doesn't back it up.

You appear to have swallowed denier hype, hook line and sinker. Throwing out pointless negatives and falsehoods.

How big was that generator again that does the job of a small range extender engine?

Tesla aren't delivering model 3's because you can't buy one without a waiting list?

The Tesla semi is only a mock up capable of crossing a stage?

Shall we even discuss your ability to differentiate between Ah and kWh's or your ability to accept that a 25kWh EV batt will only give 39 miles of range .... without you being concerned, yet at the same time claiming to have knowledge/understanding of the subject?

AdrianC wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt, let me restate where I sit...
Electric vehicles are simply not ready to replace the highest mileage cars on our roads - and they're the ones that produce the most emissions.

They produce the most emissions per car, but not the most emissions. If you replace the lower mileage cars who, combined, are responsible for 51% of emissions, then your argument becomes mathematical nonsense.

AdrianC wrote: »

They are nowhere near ready to replace commercial vehicles. They are nowhere near ready to replace normal cars for most people's edge-case use, even if they are for their routine use.

And yet electric/electrified commercial vehicles are being developed all over the world, and deployment is happening now, or soon.

Edge case use is irrelevant, it's simply a diversion. Hiring a car for extreme instances is a perfectly acceptable solution, and will even allow for a smaller vehicle to be chosen for daily use.

AdrianC wrote: »

The infrastructure is not in place to address those issues, and basic laws of physics cannot be easily ignored.

The infrastructure is being rolled out in line with EV adoption. Anything else would make no sense.

The laws of physics, basic or otherwise, have nothing to do with any problems (real or imaginary), it's just a grandstanding statement without foundation.

AdrianC wrote: »

Many of the uses for which electric cars currently provide the biggest wins - shorter journeys and urban usage, especially - would be better addressed by replacing the typical car with other forms of transport completely, not just by different cars.

Maybe, maybe not, but that's irrelevant to a discussion on the viability of EV's v's ICE's. If anything, it's simply more diversion to avoid the reality of EV rollouts.

AdrianC wrote: »

They may well provide localised air quality benefits, but the vast majority of our electricity generation is no lower in carbon emissions than what is being replaced.

That is not true. In fact it's a complete and total lie. Any additional leccy generation needed to support the grid will come from gas generation (since that's the demand follower). The carbon emissions from gas generation are lower than from small ICE's.

AdrianC wrote: »

Not only that, but we are already facing shortfalls in electricity generation capacity, which are only going to worsen in the short-to-medium future, even on current demand levels.

Again, this is simply a diversion. If leccy demand grows, leccy supply will grow. Generators want to produce a product and sell it, they are not in the suicide business.

As we've discussed earlier, many, many times, the majority of our gas generation sits idle at night, when they would rather be generating and earning profits.

It's a shame we have to keep going in circles, but the UK may (or may not) have a capacity issue at peak times, but that is not the same as a shortage of generation at all other times.

Ironically, as discussed previously, many, many times, EV's themselves hold the key to reducing peak load demands on the grid.

So please stop hiding behind these falsehoods.

AdrianC wrote: »

Ultimately, what people seem to forget is that electricity is a way of moving and temporarily storing energy, not a source of energy, while fossil fuels are (in anything but the very, very longest timescales) a source.

This is another trick, falsehood, diversion. FF's are a store of energy, batteries are a store of energy.

FF's are finite, leccy is infinite (via renewables), at least as far as humans are concerned.

AdrianC wrote: »

I've always found that denying the existence of very real issues in order to support a preconceived, preferred solution is the real problem, tbh.

Yet the issues you raise are not real, they are falsehoods or misunderstandings used to support a preconceived position that will not only be shown to be wrong, but already has - so you are actually living in a preconceived denialist reality.


Throughout this thread you simply post misinformation. The responses you have received/provoked have been factual, not opinionated, yet you dismiss them all and continue regardless. That is not someone seeking to learn, it is someone trying to hide from the truth.