• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Who Killed The Electric Car?

AVvXsEjyuYilrib12BKNdg2GYiDW_rtJltsbgbpy8F0UNW6ji_c4ECgKx2lFpwJxR2mDL_UeJzbOpo6d53fb2tR8baEBggKd7xCJagee02KXus5cng245SlfbkV_FytM46o2zmSi1gEUqsXM5ACQdS-QVGiAIWHELrf90PORHMMnuIUKWaEivGyitHCgUH_M58c


maximus otter
 
Sharon Hill said:
Yeah, that's half complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
it is a fact that electric cars have a bigger lifetime co2 footprint than ic cars. They are the wrong answer to a good question.
 
Cochise said:
it is a fact that electric cars have a bigger lifetime co2 footprint than ic cars. They are the wrong answer to a good question.
Click to expand...
Fact? I wouldn't say so. Even though EVs may have a larger initial carbon footprint, you cannot say it they have a bigger lifetime one in all cases. And, as technology improves, it will get less.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/lif...are-lower-than-gasoline-cars-experts-say.html
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

What people also overlook are the other benefits to EVs, which I particularly love - they don't smell, you can start them in the garage, no idling needed to warm up, they are quiet, they are fun to drive and more powerful, no typical maintenance, no stinky fueling stops or searching for cheap gas, greater awareness of driving distance and planning.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Fact? I wouldn't say so. Even though EVs may have a larger initial carbon footprint, you cannot say it they have a bigger lifetime one in all cases. And, as technology improves, it will get less.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/lif...are-lower-than-gasoline-cars-experts-say.html
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

What people also overlook are the other benefits to EVs, which I particularly love - they don't smell, you can start them in the garage, no idling needed to warm up, they are quiet, they are fun to drive and more powerful, no typical maintenance, no stinky fueling stops or searching for cheap gas, greater awareness of driving distance and planning.
Click to expand...
it is a fact. We researched in to it when my wife was driving a 4.0 litre jeep wrangler. Electric cars are worse for the environment than ic cars. Hybrids are nearly as bad. But hey, as long as they make you feel good because you have been fed the hype.

An improvement on existing cars might be a petrol-electric - effectively a hybrid without the ridiculous (and earth destroying) battery, or to put it another way a petrol or diesel engine driving an electric transmission.
 
Cochise said:
it is a fact. We researched in to it when my wife was driving a 4.0 litre jeep wrangler. Electric cars are worse for the environment than ic cars. Hybrids are nearly as bad. But hey, as long as they make you feel good because you have been fed the hype.

An improvement on existing cars might be a petrol-electric - effectively a hybrid without the ridiculous (and earth destroying) battery, or to put it another way a petrol or diesel engine driving an electric transmission.
Click to expand...
It's not a fact since a "fact" should be objectively true and that is not the case for this complex issue.
I didn't buy two full EVs (and a plug-in hybrid before that) to "feel good" or because of hype. It's an overall better choice of vehicle for my family. I do have objectively true evidence that our EVs save us nearly $3000 per year just on fueling and doesn't belch tailpipe emissions. Good enough for me. I won't buy another gas/petrol vehicle ever.

There are several valid reasons why EVs are not suitable for some people. Carbon footprint isn't a strong one.
 
Cochise said:
it is a fact. We researched in to it when my wife was driving a 4.0 litre jeep wrangler. Electric cars are worse for the environment than ic cars. Hybrids are nearly as bad. But hey, as long as they make you feel good because you have been fed the hype.

An improvement on existing cars might be a petrol-electric - effectively a hybrid without the ridiculous (and earth destroying) battery, or to put it another way a petrol or diesel engine driving an electric transmission.
Click to expand...

I currently drive a hybrid petrol/electric Jeep, which I have been quite impressed with.
In terms of damage to the environment though, I honestly don't know whether (say) a Tesla, is more damaging to produce than a more traditional car with an ICE.
Even extensive Googling simply turns up conflicting results.
So how is the average punter meant to make an evidence-based decision?
 
Sharon Hill said:
It's not a fact since a "fact" should be objectively true and that is not the case for this complex issue.
I didn't buy two full EVs (and a plug-in hybrid before that) to "feel good" or because of hype. It's an overall better choice of vehicle for my family. I do have objectively true evidence that our EVs save us nearly $3000 per year just on fueling and doesn't belch tailpipe emissions. Good enough for me. I won't buy another gas/petrol vehicle ever.

There are several valid reasons why EVs are not suitable for some people. Carbon footprint isn't a strong one.
Click to expand...
It is objectively true the misconception is that cars [and many other consumer durables) create most pollution in use. they don't, they create far more pollution being made and recycled than they do in their 'lifespan'. EV's' are bad for the planet. Full stop.
 
Cochise said:
It is objectively true the misconception is that cars [and many other consumer durables) create most pollution in use. they don't, they create far more pollution being made and recycled than they do in their 'lifespan'. EV's' are bad for the planet. Full stop.
Click to expand...
And bad for the roads. Also the electricity has to be produced.
 
Sharon Hill said:
What people also overlook are the other benefits to EVs, which I particularly love - they don't smell, you can start them in the garage, no idling needed to warm up, they are quiet, they are fun to drive and more powerful, no typical maintenance, no stinky fueling stops or searching for cheap gas, greater awareness of driving distance and planning.
Click to expand...
I can start my car in a garage. It doesn’t need idling, it’s good to go. My car is quiet and is fun to drive. If you want a more powerful car, mine already performs adequately at all legal speed limits in the country. It has needed little maintenance apart from insurance damage to a wing mirror. I like the smell of petrol, maybe it’s a man thing but I don’t feel a need to hunt around for cheap fuel. When you say ‘greater awareness of driving distance and planning’ I suspect you’re referring to what many call ‘range anxiety’, which I don’t have as I can travel most anywhere in the country in a couple of fill ups that take minutes, not hours to do.
I think the thing about EV users is many are happy about their vehicles as long as they continue to believe they are one step removed from the necessary nastiness of raw extraction of the base materials, the environmental cost of transporting minerals across the world, manufacture, assembly and ultimately the power going into the grid that goes into the plug that supplies power to these ‘clean’ machines whereas petrolheads understand and acknowledge the process.
 
Last edited:
Sharon Hill said:
Fact? I wouldn't say so. Even though EVs may have a larger initial carbon footprint, you cannot say it they have a bigger lifetime one in all cases. And, as technology improves, it will get less.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/lif...are-lower-than-gasoline-cars-experts-say.html
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

What people also overlook are the other benefits to EVs, which I particularly love - they don't smell, you can start them in the garage, no idling needed to warm up, they are quiet, they are fun to drive and more powerful, no typical maintenance, no stinky fueling stops or searching for cheap gas, greater awareness of driving distance and planning.
Click to expand...
Like everything else in this World, it will have it's pros & cons.
 
Apparently Rowan Atkinson killed the electric car:

Mr Bean is blamed for slump in electric car sales: House of Lords hears Rowan Atkinson is accused of 'damaging' public perception of EVs​


Rowan Atkinson has been blamed in evidence submitted to the House of Lords for the plunge in sales of electric cars.

The Mr Bean actor, 69, described the green machines as 'a bit soulless' in a comment piece he penned in June last year.

The Lord's environment and climate change committee has since been told the actor was partly to blame for 'damaging' public opinions on electric vehicles (EVs).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13055169/Electric-cars-Mr-Bean-Rowan-Atkinson-sales.html

maximus otter
 
I don't think it's constructive (of the industry) not to confront all the downsides of EVs head-on and announce R&D efforts to negate/reduce these.
It might be argued that there is none, in that makers n sellers of EVs don't want to admit to any problems with them. They might also want to preserve proprietorial secrecy from rivals.
But at the moment it seems to be a binary pronouncement - EV's are good or bad. What's wrong with 'could do better'?
 
RaM said:
When cell phones came in they cost a fortune now a days near everyone can afford them,
once they have ripped into the early adopters of lecky cars they will have to start selling
at prices the masses can afford or are willing to pay.
Click to expand...
That's how it seems to work, I don't have a problem with the electric car, they do cut emissions especially in big cities where the air quality can be appalling even in Europe, but there is the problem of infrastructure and the battery technology whilst improving by leaps and bounds it's not quite there, they are great to drive as well

But the elephant in the room is the cost they are not going to achieve the stated aim until they become affordable to all, it's going to take longer than the governments of the world expected plug in hybrids should be made compulsory as a first step
 
In China the same car they sell to us for £25000 ish costs £13000 ish and a Tesla model3
£27000 were we pay around £40000, likely our taxes have something to do with it.
 
I thought the UK taxpayer - i.e. me - had been subsidising them until recently anyway. I’m doing my bit!
 
RaM said:
In China the same car they sell to us for £25000 ish costs £13000 ish and a Tesla model3
£27000 were we pay around £40000, likely our taxes have something to do with it.
Click to expand...

I guess products have to be priced appropriately to each market.

The average salary for urban workers in Beijing is around the equivalent of £25,000, which is at least £10,000 lower than UK urban citizens.

https://marketingtochina.com/average-salary-china/
 
Many of these arguments are short sighted, lodged in the past. Technology evolves and changes will happen as more EVs are produced. The world will not be ruled by inefficient combustion engines forever. Sorry, gearheads.

Recycling of metals and manufacturing processes will improve. It hardly makes sense to complain about resource extraction if you love your gas/petrol engine, your coal-derived electricity, and your new electronic devices. We should do better all around. Singling out one sector is bogus.

The electricity argument is also poor since sustainable energy sources are overtaking and either already have or will soon exceed fossil fuels in many countries. I have a choice on my electricity production, and I choose green sources. It is not more expensive.

It‘s also ridiculous to use a “too expensive” arguement particularly in the US where the top selling vehicles are comparible in costs to a new EV, but fuel efficiency is rotten.

I‘m no “crunchy” environmentalist, either. I’m trying to do whatever I can, minimizing fossil fuels is a huge step that makes a difference and more people should consider it. One step at a time.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Many of these arguments are short sighted, lodged in the past. Technology evolves and changes will happen as more EVs are produced. The world will not be ruled by inefficient combustion engines forever. Sorry, gearheads.

Recycling of metals and manufacturing processes will improve. It hardly makes sense to complain about resource extraction if you love your gas/petrol engine, your coal-derived electricity, and your new electronic devices. We should do better all around. Singling out one sector is bogus.

The electricity argument is also poor since sustainable energy sources are overtaking and either already have or will soon exceed fossil fuels in many countries. I have a choice on my electricity production, and I choose green sources. It is not more expensive.

It‘s also ridiculous to use a “too expensive” arguement particularly in the US where the top selling vehicles are comparible in costs to a new EV, but fuel efficiency is rotten.

I‘m no “crunchy” environmentalist, either. I’m trying to do whatever I can, minimizing fossil fuels is a huge step that makes a difference and more people should consider it. One step at a time.
Click to expand...
The chemistry regarding batteries is fixed. There will be no breakthrough. EV's are the wrong answer. It's a dead end technology like airships, that would not have got this far but for the utter scientific ignorance in world governments that have subsidised it to a ludicrous extent. There are alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Sharon Hill said:
It‘s also ridiculous to use a “too expensive” arguement particularly in the US where the top selling vehicles are comparible in costs to a new EV, but fuel efficiency is rotten.
Click to expand...
Many people can only afford a second-hand car, because they are (relatively) poor.
The problem with electric cars is that buying one second-hand may entail buying a new battery.
I've recently heard of people who've been quoted £20k - £25k for a replacement battery. Most people cannot afford that.
So... until/unless battery tech moves on, there will be no second-hand market for EVs. And a whole bunch of people will be excluded from the EV market.
I think the only way that things will work to enable the masses to drive EVs is by leasing them, rather than by owning them. However, the leasing companies will have greatly increased costs because there will be practically no second-hand market for them to dispose of old cars.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Many of these arguments are short sighted, lodged in the past. Technology evolves and changes will happen as more EVs are produced.
Click to expand...
Undoubtably, but like mobile 'phones the tech will move on and nobody will want the older stuff. (Old mobiles you could replace the battery, new ones you can't) The result is the consumer paying more and more for each tech development which in many cases will end up not actually being an improvement.

Of course there is a choice but the marketing mob will be at their persuasive best.

This is my main argument with all of this. Naturally everyone can make a difference and a lot of "small guys" can make a big difference but the big corporations and governments are not interested unless there is a profit to be had. "We're selling you this expensive tech because we're saving the planet." "We don't want to tax you more but it's to save the planet."

Add into this that governments are not interested in long term solutions or properly looking into the pros and cons. A non EV example is vacuum cleaners. They have to have a smaller "more efficient" motor to use less power. As these motors are "more efficient" this is a "good thing". In reality thousands of old cleaners are scrapped because no parts are available and the new ones have to be used twice as long to achieve a worse result. So we end up with: as much power used as before, loads more landfill and out of pocket consumers with dirty carpets.

Many consumers are therefore confused and distrustful. It isn't done to question green initiatives without being branded some sort of polluting planet killer. Some of these initiatives may on balance be a good thing some may prove not to be. (Anyone in the UK remember the push to get everyone in diesel vehicles? That was to save the planet, I think)

I would like to see some truly objective arguments and figures not manipulated by either side of the argument, but I doubt that I'm going to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top