Lifetime newspaper article:
That can’t be right TJ says it’s not.
In the meantime the average conventional fuelled vehicle gets ever bigger / heavier, and the trend for large engined fuel inefficient 4x4s and SUVs (I hate that phrase - there is nothing "sports" about most of them) to take the kids to school in or go to the shops at the weekend in continues
Regardless of fuel type we should be driving less - particularly shorter journeys - but if we do have to drive, using smaller vehicles and keeping them longer
Nothing wrong with my VW Up! But then it doesn't show how f*ck off rich I am does it??
100kg weigh saving in a car leads to 0.4l/100km less fuel used. Lets assume that is the same the other way around as well.
That does not seem right. Check my maths: if my car does 4.5l/100km with just me, and I put three more adults in to increase the weight by 200kg then that would suggest 0.8 an increase of 0.8 which would be 5.3l/100km or 52mpg. This does not match my experience - a full car would drop me from 61 to about 58 ish from experience.
just Googling some very rough figures - I live in the South & happen to have an ideal, south facing roof so could potentially generate 3,000kWh per year. The high-performance Tesla has a 100 kWh battery so could potentially be fully charged almost every day (which would be unnecessary anyway). So I suspect a hybrid with a smaller battery (one I was looking at is about 14 kWh) could be charged every night no problem?Any idea how efficient, over a lifetime (not yours, the panel and battery), a setup like that is? Over and above commercial generation?I’m betting at our latitudes we might not find panels and batteries coming out that well.
That 100kg => 0.4l/100km has to de dependant on a particular driving cycle. On single acceleration cycle 100km flat journey the extra fuel will be minimal. Maybe that figure is from a high degree of stop start to moderate (70-80kmph) speed?
That does not seem right. Check my maths: if my car does 4.5l/100km with just me, and I put three more adults in to increase the weight by 200kg then that would suggest 0.8 an increase of 0.8 which would be 5.3l/100km or 52mpg. This does not match my experience – a full car would drop me from 61 to about 58 ish from experience.
depends on the type of driving. I would imagine your 4-up driving is probably longer distances with minimal stopping/starting (?) - whereas the study above probably refers to an overall WLTP (or similar) test which has a moderate amount of stop/start driving. once you're rolling the cost of weight is very small, but if you're using the brakes at all you're throwing energy away.
It might also be that the study was based on cars which are less efficient overall (north american market) - so 0.4l/km might have been a 5% increase, rather than a 10% with your figures
this
has lots of data, but sadly presented with the worlds worst 3d graphs that are almost unreadable. I think the general pattern is 10% weight improvement is 5% fuel economy, with larger numbers on city driving vs highway
Really intresting thread. More interested in PHEV than i was. The looser here seems to be the car tax system and emission measurements
yes obviously at some point they'll need to revise the system (or get the money by inventing a different tax!) as the majority of new vehicles will be exempt!The looser here seems to be the car tax system
It'll be fuel duty that will be the biggest issue in terms of lost revenue and for which an alternative will be required
It’ll be fuel duty that will be the biggest issue in terms of lost revenue and for which an alternative will be required
it'll be an extremely gradual change though - fuel duty only represents 1.3% of national income, down from 2.2% in 2000. If you continued the same rate of decline (0.045% a year), we would be heading towards zero income from the tax in 29 years anyway. Even if the ban on ICE sales kicks in in 15 years time (bearing in mind it doesn't hit commercial vehicles) - that rate is probably managable.
so yes, the revenue 'need to be replaced' but if its replaced with an actual, separate, tax, that's political will rather than fiscal need
Yep, total fuel duty income for HMRC is £28bn per year, which is only about 2% of their income, but with Income Tax and NI only bringing in £300bn or so, we'd be looking at a 10% rise in those to recover it.
VAT Brings in £120bn, so you'd need to raise that by 25% or so to recover it, 25% VAT rate is hardly a vote winner either.
The problem is that you can't do it progressively, or people will flood back to fossil fuels.
Anyway, VW / Porsche, despite selling Bugatti to Rimac to get access to their EV tech, say it's a load of old bollocks anyway, the future is carbon neutral synthetic fossil fuels. So that will be fun.
72 mile return trip today. I got 68mpg outward and 72mpg inward from one charge mainly on dual carriageway.
36% emissions.
I think hybrid power is the best solution for most.
Almost all journeys are doable with a small battery.
Almost all people want or need the flexibility to have the potential for additional range.
Seems to make sense.
What's the issue with two power sources? ICE cars already have alternators powering electrics for AC, starter motors, entertainment, heating. What's the problem? Harvesting braking energy also seems like a no brainer.
Loads of things use dual power sources. Don't see the issue.
(I live in a petro-state, so drive a 3.8l V6 4x4 SUV, so there we are)
What’s the issue with two power sources?
Packaging. You need a fuel tank and engine bay. On EVs they can put tons of batteries under the floor, this isn't possible if you have a normal engine and fuel tank in place.
ICE cars already have alternators powering electrics for AC, starter motors, entertainment, heating. What’s the problem?
Completely different thing. The alternator is a tiny generator, the engineering required for electric power trains is far greater.
However it's not really an issue as it's been pretty well engineered by most manufacturers.
On the dual powertrain thing, what's wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains? Is that not how Ampera's worked? Seems a lot more efficient than lugging two separate power trains about. With a light build I seem to recall high 100's mpg.
But still, PHEV's come with exactly the same infrastructure issues as any other EV (if you want to use them as designed). Who is going to pay extra to lug a battery pack around that they can't charge at home? Seems daft.
On the dual powertrain thing, what’s wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains?
You miss out on two things - you need a larger electric motor because you cannot feed ICE and electric power into the transmission and with a system like the prius you get a cvt like effect which gives a significant part of the fuel efficiency.
You also lose energy in the changes from one type of energy to the other - again not an issue with the prius type system
That can’t be right TJ says it’s not.
The article kind of supports TJ, IMO:
Scientists from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen and Cambridge conducted lifecycle assessments that showed that even where electricity generation still involves substantial amounts of fossil fuel, there was a CO2 saving over conventional cars and fossil fuel heating.
[...]
In the UK, the savings are about 30%. However, that is likely to improve further as electric vehicles grow even more efficient and more CO2 is taken out of the electricity generating system.
So in the UK, electric cars save 30% of fossil-fuel use. Hardly a panacea, is it? Most people could probably buy a smaller / more economical care and drive carefully to achieve a 30% saving in fuel economy. Yes, a 30% improvement is good but it's hardly the sea-change required to reverse global warming. We need people to take fewer journeys by car.
I feel deeply uncomfortable to say it, but I'm firmly agreeing with TJ on this...
On the dual powertrain thing, what’s wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains? Is that not how Ampera’s worked?
I have no idea about the Ampera, but that's how the BMW I3 range-extender works. The wheels are always powered by the battery but there's an engine that can top up the battery from petrol. Seem like it'd be inefficient but I don't know.
that's exactly how the Ford Transit Custom PHEV works, and it makes a lot of sense to me! But clearly not to any other van manufacturer, as all the others are going down the BEV route. I see the eVito is available now... cheaper than the Ford, but a max range of 92 miles makes it suitable only for local deliveries really, whereas the Ford is a lot more versatile as you can just keep topping up the petrol if you need to!On the dual powertrain thing, what’s wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains?
On the dual powertrain thing, what’s wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains?
A series hybrid - Ampera/volt and the i3.
For me, the advantage of this system is that the ICE only needs to be a generator, and not to power the car - so it can in theory be run more efficiently at the same revs and load all the time. It does not need to provide varying amounts of power like a traction ICE would. I think BMW use a two cylinder motorbike engine for this purpose, but I think perhaps an even more carefully designed generator could be yet more efficient. But of course, charging batteries is not very efficient. So they advertise it as a 'range extender' for those odd trips, rather than a normal mode of propulsion.
Yes, a 30% improvement is good but it’s hardly the sea-change required to reverse global warming.
I don't think anyone with any sense is claiming that it is.
You also lose energy in the changes from one type of energy to the other – again not an issue with the prius type system
Actually it is - there isn't an actual CVT with the belts and pulleys - it converts torque to speed by varying the power to and from the electric motors, battery and ICE to give the appropriate effect, and this involves generating power from one motor and feeding it to the other. This is only something like 85% efficient, but when you take into account the fact that a traditional gearbox also has losses the energy lost in the Prius system is more than countered by the other efficiencies it enables.
Yes, a 30% improvement is good but it’s hardly the sea-change required to reverse global warming.
I think we all agree with that. 🤦🏻♂️
Yes, a 30% improvement is good but it’s hardly the sea-change required to reverse global warming. We need people to take fewer journeys by car.
thats why i call it a greenwash. Moving to more sustainable lifestyles is the only answer IMO Hybrids can only make a tiny contribution to overall energy consumption / emissions
its the dark green / light green debate. Best explained I think using fabric conditioner as an example, The light green buys ecover fabric conditioner - the dark green does not use it
the best way to reduce emissions from cars is to make them less convenient and cheap to use and to make the alternatives cheaper and more convenient along with lifestyle changes to make moving people around the country less needed
thats why i call it a greenwash. Moving to more sustainable lifestyles is the only answer IMO Hybrids can only make a tiny contribution to overall energy consumption / emissions
Greenwash is taking whatever you do normally and pretending it's eco friendly. So it's not greenwash to claim that hybrids are better for the environment, because on the whole they are. NO-ONE is claiming that it's the solution to humanity's problems.
the best way to reduce emissions from cars is to make them less convenient and cheap to use and to make the alternatives cheaper and more convenient along with lifestyle changes to make moving people around the country less needed
It is. But Toyota or Ford cannot do that, can they? That takes governments, and governments require voters. The problem lies squarely with governments and ultimately voters, not with car makers.
thats why i call it a greenwash. Moving to more sustainable lifestyles is the only answer IMO Hybrids can only make a tiny contribution to overall energy consumption / emissions
Oooooh! You’re back then.
Owning a hybrid can be part of a sustainable lifestyle TJ just a different one to how you live yours.
Greenwash is taking whatever you do normally and pretending it’s eco friendly.
correct - which is why hybrids are greenwashing. What you actually need to do is drive less.
Owning a hybrid can be part of a sustainable lifestyle TJ
Please tell me how any car owning can be part of a sustainable lifestyle.
Oooooh! You’re back then.
Bollox - forgot I was making me and other cross!
Off for a nice sustainable walk from my house without any use of a car. I am trying to think how many miles I have done in ICE vehicles this year. I think its under 200 in the last 12 months ( plus someone else drove the vehicle back a couple of times so thats another hundred or so miles driven for my usage)
edit - plus 100 miles in ferries
But then it doesn’t show how f*ck off rich I am does it??
...and that there, is the crux of the issue. Unless you can disconnect the car/status symbol relationship, the best anyone can do is make cars more environmentally friendly. Now personally, I'd be more impressed by TJ commuting on a beaten up on CdF with tan wall tyres, than him driving a white Range Rover, but I guess STW isn't the typical audience for those wedded to conspicuous consumption. TJ's view is very laudable but convincing Mr commuter belt, golf club, school run, kitchen island, middle manager to ditch his car will take generations sadly.
TJ’s view is very laudable but convincing Mr commuter belt, golf club, school run, kitchen island, middle manager to ditch his car will take generations sadly.
could be done in a single generation - simply keep on increasing tax on road use and fuel use using that money to improve public transport and rural broadband
simply keep on increasing tax on road use and fuel use using that money on subsidies to bring prices of essential items that need to be transported (eg food)
ftfy
or to give land to everyone so they can grow their own potatoes, and a bike* to commute from home to their allotment
(* delivered by a ship with a sail and thence by cargo bike, of course, and made from steel smelted in a parabolic mirror solar furnace) 😉
Please tell me how any car owning can be part of a sustainable lifestyle.
Well there’s no point well all know your views on car ownership I’ve more chance of convincing you to wear a helmet. However, owning a one that is more environmentally friendly is better than owning a planet killing juice guzzler.
correct – which is why hybrids are greenwashing. What you actually need to do is drive less.
No, it's not greenwash. It IS environmentally MORE friendly to drive a hybrid. And that's what Toyota tell us. It's not up to Toyota how much you drive it, that part is up to you.
It would be greenwash if a company said 'we're super eco friendly now because we've given all our sales reps Priuses' when they have a far better option which would be doing all their sales meetings remotely.
could be done in a single generation – simply keep on increasing tax on road use and fuel use using that money to improve public transport and rural broadband
I can't believe how naive you can be at times TJ.
The electorate won't vote for continued tax increases. They would have to WANT that for a government to do it. And if they wanted mileage reduced, they'd do it themselves. But the fact is we have a democracy, and that means the government has to do what we want - and we want our nice big cars and to drive everywhere.
Reversing that is going to take a lot of time, effort and skill unfortunately.
Your phrasing is telling, @Drac:
However, owning a one that is more environmentally friendly is better than owning a planet killing juice guzzler.
Alternatively:
However, owning a planet killing juice guzzler that is fractionally more environmentally friendly is better than owning a standard planet killing juice guzzler.
NO-ONE is claiming that it’s the solution to humanity’s problems.
Well, not all of humanity's problems, no. But there are plenty of people that think that BEVs are going to save the planet. There are plenty more that will think BEVs absolve them of eco-guilt. In reality, all that will happen is that BEVs will preserve our favoured way of life for a bit longer.
taking whatever you do normally and pretending it’s eco friendly.
That is precisely what driving an "eco friendly" car is...
There's another point here. People want to buy new cars, that's what they do. By encouraging people to buy EVs they are forcing the manufacturers to put the R&D into EVs. This means that they will only become more common. Then we will need more electricity, which (if done right) will end up creating more renewable options.
So the promotion of EVs *could* end up reducing our emissions by say 10% or so. This is significant. Obviously it's not going to save the world on its own, but no single technology is. We clearly need to drive far less, but when we DO drive, we should be driving as low-impact a car as possible. Along with all the other things we need to do.
There's no point complaining it's not the silver bullet - there IS NO silver bullet. We will need to do all the things.
That is precisely what driving an “eco friendly” car is…
The correct term is 'more eco friendly' not 'eco friendly'. As I said - you need to reduce your mileage AND drive a more eco friendly car. Complaining it's greenwash is unproductive in my opinion. This kind of internecine bickering is what leads the average man on the street to end up saying 'it's all bollocks who cares?'
However, owning a planet killing juice guzzler that is fractionally more environmentally friendly is better than owning a standard planet killing juice guzzler.
Yeah you could word it like that too but the more people who switch to these ‘fractionally’ more environmentally cars the better. My post was obviously too subtle for you to realise it was play on greenwashing.
Regardless of fuel type we should be driving less – particularly shorter journeys – but if we do have to drive, using smaller vehicles and keeping them longer
Nothing wrong with my VW Up! But then it doesn’t show how f*ck off rich I am does it??
This is the other issue. SUVs are starting to dominate the the normal family car market. What efficiencies you gain through hybrid technology are being thrown away in the name of fashion.
drive a more eco friendly car.
Once you factor in the environmental cost of the batteries, from mining to disposal, they seem less friendly.
It's like saying nuclear is a clean source of energy. As long as you ignore the fact that we don't have a way of dealing with the fuel rods, except to bury them. Which is just hiding the dirt.
Having said that here and europe is much better than North America, where the phev concept is to make an SUV with the same emissions more powerful, not the same power for less emissions
Its not naivety Molgrips - its how other countries do things. Carrot and stick. You simply balance it with reductions elsewhere. Read up on the carbon economy and carbon taxes. Read up on how the dutch got their cycle lanes. that took less than a generation to completely alter the dutch urban transport systems
Once you factor in the environmental cost of the batteries, from mining to disposal, they seem less friendly.
Seem but not
A bit like say nuclear fuel
OMG chromolly - do you realise how many bits of blue touchpaper you just lit with one post!
Molgrips - we use taxation to drive behavior all the time
OMG chromolly – do you realise how many bits of blue touchpaper you just lit with one post!
It’s ok it’s evident he’s running on an old script, you can tell as he thinks batteries are disposed of.
It’s like saying nuclear is a clean source of energy.
That would be pretty daft tbh. Good job only idiots would claim such a thing. Low carbon on the other hand...
Its not naivety Molgrips – its how other countries do things.
It's naive to think that whatever happens in other countries can easily happen here! The relationship between government and people is really quite different in different countries. Any UK govt that tried to raise taxes on *anything* would get shot to bits at the next election. That's why no-one sticks their neck out. And motoring is a massively emotive issue.
I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, I am saying it's nearly impossible. There may however be other ways to change behaviour - such as incentivising WFH for example, which I've talked about for years.
Around here the system to tax trucks was abandonned at great cost and the gilets jaunes got the better of the increases in fuel tax. Trucks and cars are untouchables in terms of the stick so the carrot is the only way, and do you really want to be encouraging the use of any car? Our bonus/malus system discourages the use of biger vehicles but so big that the people who buy them have so much spending power the price dosen't matter and camper vans are exempt. :/
