Would you ever consider getting an electric car?

Watch
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 years ago
#61
(Original post by CurlyBen)
Is damaging the environment with an electric car really that much better than damaging the environment with an internal combustion car?
Doonesbury has already answered you above with a graph showing precisely how much better.
0
reply
toonervoustotalk
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 years ago
#62
If they ever drive and feel like a petrol rear wheel drive count me in but at the moment no
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#63
Report 3 years ago
#63
(Original post by 04MR17)
Doonesbury has already answered you above with a graph showing precisely how much better.
Congratulations, you missed the point... although electric vehicle emissions are lower than ICE emissions, they're still significant. You can't claim you're not contributing to vehicular emissions by driving an electric vehicle. And, as I pointed out in my reply to Doonesbury, you cannot hope to make a comprehensive comparison with a single graph...
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 years ago
#64
(Original post by CurlyBen)
You can't claim you're not contributing to vehicular emissions by driving an electric vehicle.
And I didn't.
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 years ago
#65
(Original post by CurlyBen)
And, as I pointed out in my reply to Doonesbury, you cannot hope to make a comprehensive comparison with a single graph...
I await your detailed thesis then.

(The complete FT article is still free to access if you want to get a head start...)
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 years ago
#66
(Original post by 04MR17)
And I didn't.
You said that you don't want to contribute to the environmental damage that vehicles have caused, and in the very next sentence you said you plan on getting an electric car as soon as possible. The logical implication of those two statements is that you don't believe electric vehicles damage the environment!

(Original post by Doonesbury)
I await your detailed thesis then.

(The complete FT article is still free to access if you want to get a head start...)
You'll be waiting a long time then, I've no intention of writing one. Amongst other reasons, we haven't yet had electric vehicles long enough to accurately gauge what the average lifespan of one will be, which is vital as so much of their environmental impact is in manufacture. Additionally, my point was only to highlight the fact that electric vehicles have a non-negligible environmental impact. Comparing the impact of electric and ICE vehicles is not trivial.
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 years ago
#67
(Original post by CurlyBen)
You'll be waiting a long time then, I've no intention of writing one. Amongst other reasons, we haven't yet had electric vehicles long enough to accurately gauge what the average lifespan of one will be, which is vital as so much of their environmental impact is in manufacture. Additionally, my point was only to highlight the fact that electric vehicles have a non-negligible environmental impact. Comparing the impact of electric and ICE vehicles is not trivial.
Agreed. The FT article discusses all that. And the chart is a fair summary.

But of course the devil is in the detail. Have a look at the article and the referenced sources.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 years ago
#68
(Original post by CurlyBen)
Congratulations, you missed the point... although electric vehicle emissions are lower than ICE emissions, they're still significant. You can't claim you're not contributing to vehicular emissions by driving an electric vehicle. And, as I pointed out in my reply to Doonesbury, you cannot hope to make a comprehensive comparison with a single graph...
And then we have the sources of the electricity to consider - setting aside the CO2 output in building the vehicle, we have a situation where it is extremely implausible that current renewables could power our huge national vehicle fleet. Therefore a big switch to electric vehicles would simply shift the CO2 emissions from the vehicles to the power stations. In most cases, this would involve more gas (a non-negligible source of CO2) or more nuclear stations, which involve very large CO2 outputs during construction and decommissioning.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#69
Report 3 years ago
#69
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
And then we have the sources of the electricity to consider - setting aside the CO2 output in building the vehicle, we have a situation where it is extremely implausible that current renewables could power our huge national vehicle fleet. Therefore a big switch to electric vehicles would simply shift the CO2 emissions from the vehicles to the power stations. In most cases, this would involve more gas (a non-negligible source of CO2) or more nuclear stations, which involve very large CO2 outputs during construction and decommissioning.
It solves one half of the problem though. Once you got cars running on electricity, you then "only" have to find better ways of generating that electricity.
0
reply
Tubbz
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#70
Report 3 years ago
#70
The Simpsons Road Rage got it right with their nuclear buses.
1
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#71
Report 3 years ago
#71
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
And then we have the sources of the electricity to consider - setting aside the CO2 output in building the vehicle, we have a situation where it is extremely implausible that current renewables could power our huge national vehicle fleet. Therefore a big switch to electric vehicles would simply shift the CO2 emissions from the vehicles to the power stations. In most cases, this would involve more gas (a non-negligible source of CO2) or more nuclear stations, which involve very large CO2 outputs during construction and decommissioning.
There's certainly infrastructural issues as this scales up. But, for now, there's excess night-time capacity, and every reason to expect renewables to be scaleable too.

It really depends on how this all rolls out:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...-vehicles-need
"In one scenario, where 100% of cars go electric but smart charging and shared autonomous vehicles help manage the impact on the grid, peak demand could be limited to around 6 gigawatts (GW) in 2050. This is equivalent to 10% of the current 60GW peak demand on a cold winter’s day."
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#72
Report 3 years ago
#72
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
And then we have the sources of the electricity to consider - setting aside the CO2 output in building the vehicle, we have a situation where it is extremely implausible that current renewables could power our huge national vehicle fleet. Therefore a big switch to electric vehicles would simply shift the CO2 emissions from the vehicles to the power stations. In most cases, this would involve more gas (a non-negligible source of CO2) or more nuclear stations, which involve very large CO2 outputs during construction and decommissioning.
Moving power production to power stations isn't necessarily a bad thing. You're moving the pollution out of towns and cities, the instant on/off nature of electrical vehicles means energy isn't wasted whilst the car is stationary and efficiency is generally better when burning fuel on large scales than small (although the inefficiency of transmitting energy and charging batteries eats into that). You're absolutely correct in saying that eliminating tailpipe emissions is a long way from the end of the story though.

(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
It solves one half of the problem though. Once you got cars running on electricity, you then "only" have to find better ways of generating that electricity.
There are other issues, such as mining rare earth elements, which are used more extensively in electric vehicles than ICE vehicles. CO2 emissions are an important issue, but not the only one.
0
reply
Mr Smurf
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 years ago
#73
Not any time soon as I don’t give a flying **** about emissions.
1
reply
Nalk1573
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 year ago
#74
(Original post by RoyalSheepy)
Would you ever consider getting one today, and why?

Image
Yes, the Babcock Runabout
0
reply
Rabbit2
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 year ago
#75
No, i would NOT. Putting this in perspective - i hold a MSEE [master of science in electrical engineering]. The problems are many, but leading the list are the following: a> the energy storage capability of any battery in existence (even the exotic ones) is vastly inferior to that obtainable from liquid fuel. This is why (in my opinion), liquid fuel has been used since nearly the beginning. Gaseous storage is also grossly inferior. This was shown by the gas powered buses in use during WW2 in europe. b> in addition to the tiny storage capacity, you have the charging problem. Today, in many industrialized areas, power companies have trouble keeping the lights on when there is any significant load from air conditioning. As nearly all new buildings are built with 'non-opening' windows, in other than an arctic climate, cooling is needed a significant part of the year. In some areas, it is needed nearly year round. If you consider the power requirements of even a 'tiny' commuter vehicle - that goes 20 miles one way to work and returns - the 'overnight' charge time would roughly double the power load of the average house. This would require the power grid to transport roughly double the power that it does now. The 'production' vehicles that are 'on sale' now - are basically 'golf carts'. Sales propaganda states that they will go: "40 to 50 miles per hour", and 'up to' 20 miles. Of course - 2 miles qualifies as 'up to' 20 miles - 'up to' means "less than". What the literature does NOT state, is that they will go 50 miles per hour FOR 20 miles. They clearly cannot. Speed and range are inverse. The faster you take energy out of a battery, the less you can get out. You can go (basically) 45 miles per hour for 1 mile, or 18 miles at 1 mile/hr. Somewhere in between is also possible - with some combination of speed and distance.

Whilst you are 'electricing about' - the energy you use has to be generated by a (probably) petroleum or coal fired power plant somewhere in the countryside. When you include 'transmission losses' - you would be further ahead (in a pollution standpoint) in burning the coal or oil in the car directly. The only way to get around these problems that is apparent to me (in 2019), is to run the car with an 'on board' nuclear plant - somewhat akin to a "Snap". It would have to have considerably higher output than a Snap though. Another problem is - i don't think the 'greenies' would accept nuke powered cars running about. Cheers.
0
reply
Nalk1573
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 year ago
#76
(Original post by Rabbit2)
No, i would NOT. Putting this in perspective - i hold a MSEE [master of science in electrical engineering]. The problems are many, but leading the list are the following: a> the energy storage capability of any battery in existence (even the exotic ones) is vastly inferior to that obtainable from liquid fuel. This is why (in my opinion), liquid fuel has been used since nearly the beginning. Gaseous storage is also grossly inferior. This was shown by the gas powered buses in use during WW2 in europe. b> in addition to the tiny storage capacity, you have the charging problem. Today, in many industrialized areas, power companies have trouble keeping the lights on when there is any significant load from air conditioning. As nearly all new buildings are built with 'non-opening' windows, in other than an arctic climate, cooling is needed a significant part of the year. In some areas, it is needed nearly year round. If you consider the power requirements of even a 'tiny' commuter vehicle - that goes 20 miles one way to work and returns - the 'overnight' charge time would roughly double the power load of the average house. This would require the power grid to transport roughly double the power that it does now. The 'production' vehicles that are 'on sale' now - are basically 'golf carts'. Sales propaganda states that they will go: "40 to 50 miles per hour", and 'up to' 20 miles. Of course - 2 miles qualifies as 'up to' 20 miles - 'up to' means "less than". What the literature does NOT state, is that they will go 50 miles per hour FOR 20 miles. They clearly cannot. Speed and range are inverse. The faster you take energy out of a battery, the less you can get out. You can go (basically) 45 miles per hour for 1 mile, or 18 miles at 1 mile/hr. Somewhere in between is also possible - with some combination of speed and distance.

Whilst you are 'electricing about' - the energy you use has to be generated by a (probably) petroleum or coal fired power plant somewhere in the countryside. When you include 'transmission losses' - you would be further ahead (in a pollution standpoint) in burning the coal or oil in the car directly. The only way to get around these problems that is apparent to me (in 2019), is to run the car with an 'on board' nuclear plant - somewhat akin to a "Snap". It would have to have considerably higher output than a Snap though. Another problem is - i don't think the 'greenies' would accept nuke powered cars running about. Cheers.
are you sure ?

https://www.stolenhistory.org/thread...ry-in-1909.21/
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 year ago
#77
(Original post by Rabbit2)
The 'production' vehicles that are 'on sale' now - are basically 'golf carts'. Sales propaganda states that they will go: "40 to 50 miles per hour", and 'up to' 20 miles. Of course - 2 miles qualifies as 'up to' 20 miles - 'up to' means "less than". What the literature does NOT state, is that they will go 50 miles per hour FOR 20 miles. They clearly cannot. Speed and range are inverse. The faster you take energy out of a battery, the less you can get out. You can go (basically) 45 miles per hour for 1 mile, or 18 miles at 1 mile/hr. Somewhere in between is also possible - with some combination of speed and distance.
So you don't think a Tesla can average 65 mph for 200+ miles?
https://insideevs.com/estimate-tesla...ighway-speeds/

A Tesla P100D (advertised EPA range is 335 miles) can do 259 miles at 80 mph.

It's hardly a golf cart...
0
reply
Rabbit2
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 year ago
#78
(Original post by Doones)
So you don't think a Tesla can average 65 mph for 200+ miles?
https://insideevs.com/estimate-tesla...ighway-speeds/

A Tesla P100D (advertised EPA range is 335 miles) can do 259 miles at 80 mph.

It's hardly a golf cart...
I'm sorry - i'd have to see that - or better yet - drive it that far at that speed myself. One of the famous scams for gasoline cars mileage was to drive the target car from Reno, Nevada to LA. The trick was - they would drive it right behind a semi [HGV to Brits] - about 3 feet away in fact. The other trick is that that route is nearly always downhill the entire way. You could basically turn the passenger car engine off, and let the truck suck it along - which is why, of course they did it.

IF they let me pick the route, i doubt very much that they could attain that range and speed. The other side of it, is that the list price starts at about $100,000 here. At under $3/US gallon, and getting about 25 to 30 miles/US gallon [which is do-able], this works out to about 990,000 miles of driving. If you figure you can getg a decent used Toyota or such for about $4,000 - and take this off of the funding - you're still miles ahead of buying the Tesla - which has an unknown longivity/maintenance record. It also may have maintenance issues - with few dealers/repair shops across the country that are qualified to work on it, and undetermined availability of spare parts.

In addition, the charge time (at 110 volts) is quoted at 96.7 hours. That's about 11 days if you charge it at night. It's not much better at 220v, which, of course - doubles the current drawn from the power line. They get it down by charging at 440v, this quadruples the current drawn, but no standard house or apartment has the facilities for that here. If you had more than one or two of those in the D.C. area, and plugged them in to charge, you would stop the planet in it's tracks. Even now, with the airconditioning load you pull in the summer - when it's 30 to 35 C - you are right on the verge of 'browning out' the entire city.

On board nuke generators might be a possibility - this would get around the charging time & power line load - but i can't see the 'greenies' holding still for this. And you've still got the maintenance/parts issues. Cheers.
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 year ago
#79
(Original post by Rabbit2)
I'm sorry - i'd have to see that - or better yet - drive it that far at that speed myself. One of the famous scams for gasoline cars mileage was to drive the target car from Reno, Nevada to LA. The trick was - they would drive it right behind a semi [HGV to Brits] - about 3 feet away in fact. The other trick is that that route is nearly always downhill the entire way. You could basically turn the passenger car engine off, and let the truck suck it along - which is why, of course they did it.

IF they let me pick the route, i doubt very much that they could attain that range and speed. The other side of it, is that the list price starts at about $100,000 here. At under $3/US gallon, and getting about 25 to 30 miles/US gallon [which is do-able], this works out to about 990,000 miles of driving. If you figure you can getg a decent used Toyota or such for about $4,000 - and take this off of the funding - you're still miles ahead of buying the Tesla - which has an unknown longivity/maintenance record. It also may have maintenance issues - with few dealers/repair shops across the country that are qualified to work on it, and undetermined availability of spare parts.

In addition, the charge time (at 110 volts) is quoted at 96.7 hours. That's about 11 days if you charge it at night. It's not much better at 220v, which, of course - doubles the current drawn from the power line. They get it down by charging at 440v, this quadruples the current drawn, but no standard house or apartment has the facilities for that here. If you had more than one or two of those in the D.C. area, and plugged them in to charge, you would stop the planet in it's tracks. Even now, with the airconditioning load you pull in the summer - when it's 30 to 35 C - you are right on the verge of 'browning out' the entire city.

On board nuke generators might be a possibility - this would get around the charging time & power line load - but i can't see the 'greenies' holding still for this. And you've still got the maintenance/parts issues. Cheers.
If you doubt the methodology used by an independent motoring journalism take it up with them. Ask them for the route.

Note it corroborates the EPA data, so that's 2 different routes.
0
reply
scorpion95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 year ago
#80
I don't think that I would to be honest maybe possibly in the distant future but not with the current state of things. There isn't much infrastructure for them and the massive issue of distant and charge times too. I have driven a Twizzy on holiday which was good and enjoyed it however the battery life was poor, had to plan in more detail to make sure got to a charge point and was constantly stressing over the battery charge indicator when driving. You had to plan to spend a couple of hours somewhere to get sufficient charge to make sure you could get to the next couple of places. It was only a small island so about 20 something miles long but was up and down hills but could maybe make it from one end to the other maybe if lucky.

I would be more inclined to go for a hydrogen car instead if they more investment went into them and price came down as the infrastructure is already in place and it gives more or less the same mileage as petrol/diesel cars and is possibly more cleaner than electric cars. Electric cars are harder to recycle and also the power has to come from somewhere which is generally fossil fuel burning power stations. Also this adds more pressure on to the energy demand of the country which is already struggling to cope with the demand.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (63)
12.26%
Virtual campus tours/open days (120)
23.35%
Live streaming events (46)
8.95%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (50)
9.73%
A uni comparison tool (120)
23.35%
An in-person event when available (115)
22.37%

Watched Threads

View All