Forum menu
roneFree Member
It’s been hammered into people’s heads for years that the tax payer’s pay for everything. And those that sit at the top of chain need this narrative to survive.
This isn't a problem, it's an opportunity. Assuming most people think like this, then getting them to willingly contribute (those that don't can opt out and can similarly divest themselves of any potenatial gains), means they have a personal stake in the solution.
I would rather they banned the sale of EVs that have no proven enubenefit when you factor in manufacture, disposal and replacement of the batteries than beef. EVs are a huge con job that is filling a short term desire to be seen to do something. I note bmw have joined this lengthening list of car manufacturers who are no longer looking to develop EVs by to focus on hydrogen instead. EVs will be the Betamax to vhs
Where do you get this from, chrismac? It's all fake news. The lifetime carbon footprint of an EV is significantly lower than ICE with the electricity generation mix in Europe and hydrogen is many times worse because it's so inefficient. We need a surplus of renewable electricity before hydrogen can be considered and that's no happening anytime soon. To quote BMX's hydrogen man:
“We think the future will be electric with the majority battery-electric and we're trying to develop architecture that can do both [electric and hydrogen],” says Juergen Guldner, general project manager for hydrogen technology with BMW Group."
I would rather they banned the sale of EVs that have no proven enubenefit when you factor in manufacture, disposal and replacement of the batteries
I mean, that's just total and complete bollocks. Taking into account the FULL LCA for an EV vs FF car it's at minimum 70% less emissions:
[url] https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/electric-cars-greener-petrol-cars/ [/url]
[url] https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/how-clean-are-electric-cars/ [/url]
In the UK, that will soon (2025.2027) be closer to 85% less. Do some actual research, FFS!
I have thanks.
THe greenpeace article ingores the CO2 in making the vehicle and the second one is a green loby group funfed by green charities so likely to be ass biased as the pto oil funded loby groups trying to proove the opposite. Neither are credible
A diesel car takes on aaver 5.8 tonnes of CO2 to make v 8.8 for an equivelent EV.
The ASA have recently also banned adverts from the car companies for been misleading in how green EVs actually are
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/mg-motor-uk-ltd-a23-1209401-mg-motor-uk-ltd.html
Futher more a fossil fuel car has to be 95% recycleable. For EVs that figure is only 50% because of the difficulty in recycling the hazzardous materials in the batteries.
Do the lifetime emissions allow for energy generation in the UK having fossil fuels all but removed from the mix by 2030, and reduced in every year from 2025? (Which assumes the Tories lose the next election of course)
If buying a new car now (not something I’ll be doing), a new EV or plug in hybrid will become less damaging in future, a new 100% petrol or diesel car will not.
An old small petrol car will be my next vehicle as it happens. But new cars moving to EV makes sense, no matter how hard you try and squint and contort the current figures for them. Keeping old cars in use is as important though, cost of production can’t be ignored.
EV manufacturers are being let off the hook when it comes to manufacture and end of life at the moment. This needs to change, and it will soon (it’s already planned in for most markets).
chrismacFull Member
I have thanks.THe greenpeace article ingores the CO2 in making the vehicle and the second one is a green loby group funfed by green charities so likely to be ass biased as the pto oil funded loby groups trying to proove the opposite. Neither are credible
You clearly haven't as the Greenpeice airticle DIRECTLY addresses mining.
TnE is an NGO operating in 6 countries and which clearly publishes it's source material, funders, etc. None of its funders are Automotive or Electrical or Resource.
An average FF car in europe produces 3t of Co2 in 10000miles. By your own figures, the EV would breakeven in 1.4 years at the current EU average emissions. For the remaining assumed 8-10 years, you'd save 25t of CO2. That's assuming that grid power does not get greener which it will (because it alredy has, we're at 30% of what we were 15 years ago) and will be at 25% by the end of 2024.
Even assuming 50% non-recyclability (a measure which was put in place to allow for the difficuly of batteris while the problem is solved...and it is being solved) it's still a whopping 20t greener than your Diesel and it improves air quality and lowers noise pollution.
For EVs that figure is only 50% because of the difficulty in recycling the hazzardous materials in the batteries.
A French company was on the news with plant recovering nearly all the metals and 70% of the lithium, the residue being harmless enough to incorporate into building blocks. When they have more batteries they'll scale up, at present the shortage is batteries, they're mainly from written-of cars rather than end of life batteries because they're lasting so well.
Prefer to spend the money supporting Ukraine.
You clearly haven’t as the Greenpeice airticle DIRECTLY addresses mining.
I have it talks about the following
Their desire for 80% renewables by 2030 which wont happen as the infrastrucutre in the grid isnt there
It talks about mining being not nice but then trys to deflect it by saying the child labout used is no worse than drilling for oil. I beg to differ.
Nowhere does it produce any evidence or propose any solution to its desire for electric cars. It ignores the CO2 impact of upgrading the national drid to cope with all the elctricity demands the switch away from fossil fuels will require.
Well it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice if it were true but 10 seconds with Google will reveal that the whole of agriculture is dwarfed by transport and beef is a only a part of agriculture. Reducing or eliminating meat from you diet is part of a lower carbon lifestyle but not the biggest issue by any means.
Looks like an amount worth looking at for something that should be a lot easier and lower impact on peoples lives than many of the other options.
If anything crismac, ignoring other impacts in the total analysis is very much in favour of ICEs because it ignores a large part of the CO2 in providing their fuel. The co2 produced in producing, refining and transporting oil products is enormous. You're worrying about the electricity grid but forgetting the oil pipelines,tankers, rigs, drilling ships, refineries, storage, gas pipelines... .
Then there's methane. In many oil producing regions old wells are left uncapped and leaking methane forever. For those that are capped the success rate is disappointing particularly for gas. A German researcher has been putting together a map of methane emissions; high levels surround the oil industry but in particular gas pipelines, gas installations, gas wells and gas points of use, oil drilling. The problem has got worse since flaring was stopped in some areas. Methane is a stonger greenhouse gas than CO2. Don't let people blaming cows fool you, the elephant in the methane room is the oil and gas industry.
I think you'd agree that the correlation between high methane levels as measured by satelites and the oil and gas industry is quite striking. I can't find the more detailed maps for Berlin and Germany but they make the assertion that methane emissions in Europe are mainly down to agriculture hard to believe. There aren't many cows in Berlin but very high levels of methane which again follow the gas distribution network.
I do already choose to pay more.
If possible I try and travel by public transport to get to places. Often that costs me a bit more than driving.
I think the thing that really frustrates me is the massive status quo bias that stops us making the changes that the vast majority would like, and even enjoy.
Most people use cars out of necessity. It then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, because so many people use them that other forms of transport are overlooked.
When these changes are made, they are generally popular. I honestly prefer travelling by bike and train to driving, even given the extra cost and the current state of the rail system. It annoys the hell out of me that the reason that public transport is in the state that it’s in is because of the current government’s limited ideology.
This is why it’d be interesting to give people the chance to pay more. It would give the government leverage to plan long term investment and strategy knowing that not only do people say they want to make a difference, but that they’re actually willing to put their money where their mouth is and do something about it. They can then track the figures, see the trends and campaign on it. It’s self fulfilling, the more people on-board, the more secure the governments (maybe the nation, not the government) future long term planning might be.
That’s the purpose of a democracy though?
I read something interesting the other day, which is the current government actually tries to downplay any of it’s (limited, granted) environmental achievements because it’s actually a vote loser with it’s (nutjob) party members. 😳
Green policies are popular with voters (although not necessarily with some vested interests) which is why Starmer's U-turn is unlikely to give Labour an extra boost, and why Thatcher long ago tried to present herself as champion of the environmental debate:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-green-hero