Adventures in an all electric vehicle.

[Roger440]

See the wiki entry above - it’s split fairly evenly between countries that have banned diesel/petrol and those that have done it via specifying zero emissions - uk is not alone in this approach. Both of which effectively mean, as it stands, that any ice vehicles are banned from the dates that those countries have set.

I guess if they can get ice to zero emissions before then things might change, but it seems unlikely.

I’m not saying I agree with anything, but it’s fairly obvious that worldwide the ice is at an end without some fairly dramatic developments.

Just because we a not alone does not suddenly make our approach sensible.

It doesnt matter is someone got ICE to zero emmision. We have banned them, So who is going to try? Where is the incentive? The existing global fleet of cars isnt suddenly going to disappear.

There wont be any dramatic developments. Because its already banned by us and others. If someone discovers something tommorow, its irrelevant. To sell it would require law changes in multiple governments. Which isnt going to happen.

So we are commited to a single technology, which most cant afford, which simply extends the life of the existing fleet, with all the emmisions that brings with it.

Still, its good for the aftermarket.

 

[daleyd]

Just because we a not alone does not suddenly make our approach sensible.

It doesnt matter is someone got ICE to zero emmision. We have banned them, So who is going to try? Where is the incentive? The existing global fleet of cars isnt suddenly going to disappear.

There wont be any dramatic developments. Because its already banned by us and others. If someone discovers something tommorow, its irrelevant. To sell it would require law changes in multiple governments. Which isnt going to happen.

So we are commited to a single technology, which most cant afford, which simply extends the life of the existing fleet, with all the emmisions that brings with it.

Still, its good for the aftermarket.

If by a miracle in the next few years, despite the 200 years of development, someone invents something that means there's no emissions from an ICE I'm sure there would be a u turn of epic proportions.

Why are you convinced we are committed for evermore to a single technology? Hydrogen is being developed, fuel cells, different battery tech. There's so much stuff being looked at and developed. The fact that none of it is suitable, currently, doesn't mean development stops. The same goes for ICE, but the fact it's such a mature tech seems very unlikely that it's suddenly going to be palatable, no matter what efficiencies they can eke out.

It may turn out that battery tech is a stop gap to something else, or it may be that's all we have. What's certain is that there's some consensus the ICE doesn't have a future for personal transport, at least in it's current from. (Again, I'm not saying I agree with that).

We may end up having to rethink the entire philosophy of personal transport in the future, who knows? It's certainly talked about.

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

The same goes for ICE, but the fact it's such a mature tech seems very unlikely that it's suddenly going to be palatable, no matter what efficiencies they can eke out.

I reckon SCN (synthetic carbon neutral) fuel is going to reduce overall emissions a lot quicker than replacing every ICE engine on the planet with an EV (even if it were possible which it currently isn't).

I still remember the utter stupidity of encouraging diesel ownership in 2010...I wonder if EVs will be the same 10 years from now!

 

[Roger440]

I reckon SCN (synthetic carbon neutral) fuel is going to reduce overall emissions a lot quicker than replacing every ICE engine on the planet with an EV (even if it were possible which it currently isn't).

I still remember the utter stupidity of encouraging diesel ownership in 2010...I wonder if EVs will be the same 10 years from now!

Indeed, as any sane person would conclude.

But we have banned that option. For news cars at least.

 

[Erie Fred]

I reckon SCN (synthetic carbon neutral) fuel is going to reduce overall emissions a lot quicker than replacing every ICE engine on the planet with an EV (even if it were possible which it currently isn't).

I still remember the utter stupidity of encouraging diesel ownership in 2010...I wonder if EVs will be the same 10 years from now!

Even a simple change to propane would drop the emissions by a large percentage.
That's why forklifts that drive inside use propane.

 

[minimutly]

Even a simple change to propane would drop the emissions by a large percentage.
That's why forklifts that drive inside use propane.

Yes yes no...
Propane is a by product of refining oil.
The burn is cleaner than petrol or diesel can be cleaned to.
But, Nox emissions are increased. This could be reduced by water injection of course.
So not a clear cut argument...

 

[Erie Fred]

Yes yes no...
Propane is a by product of refining oil.
The burn is cleaner than petrol or diesel can be cleaned to.
But, Nox emissions are increased. This could be reduced by water injection of course.
So not a clear cut argument...

It could be a good step towards reducing emissions.
This "all or nothing" is failing.

 

[DAPPH]

As above. Its not governments job to "back" anything. It should be to set a desired outcome. That is manifestly NOT what it has done.

The car industry are doing what the government have told them to do, not the otherway round. Theres plenty in the car industry that can see how this will end. A couple have said so. Most wont say anything publically. They are just trying to manage as best they can with the hand they are dealt.

Car "shortages" will be the first evidence. Assuming it makes it in to law later this year, the manufacturers will have to sell a certain % of electric cars across their range. So, regardless of demand, if they cant sell x number of electric cars, they will have to cease selling ICE cars once they reach that limit. This isnt going to be decided until September this year, with the law coming into effect 1st Jan 2024. How far in advance do you reckon car manufacturers order their cars? Let me tell you, its more than 4 months. So faced with the threat of a new law, with an unknown % figure, what would you do? The answer is, go cautious. Otherwise you will have field full of ICE cars you cant sell.

Then there the companies that dont have an electric option because they have a limited range, or only one model. They are finished.

Most of that initial pain will be in light commercials. Where replacing one van with 2 is your only viable option if you want to be on the road all day.

I predict the net result of the above lunacy will be longer retention of the existing fleet. Which is, of course, the exact opposite of the intention.

Im not sure they can "force" companies to buy electric vans. Still, the aftermarket will do OK, keeping the ever ageing fleet on the road.

The government of the day does not have to ban things, just keep moving goal posts for conditions to be met ( thank you to the Screamie Greenies ) If you want to trade in the new arena then you have to get your thinking caps on and adapt .

 

[DAPPH]

That is now somewhat behind the curve? Do keep up with developments. Now that many of the Tesla superchargers are being made available to all electric car users (I was recently considering charging at Trumpington Park and Ride). May not happen, for all superchargers, but I expect it will for the majority .






Pray tell me the form of motive power, when ICE are no longer sold in the UK? Other than the millions of ICE cars sold up until the cut-off date, of course. Other than ELE CTRIC, what form of power supply do you envisage?

Of course, that power could be from Hydrogen. But doubtful it would be from internal combustion - fuel cells are far more efficient than inefficient expansion of gases. Thermodynamics provide a good limit to the efficiency of using fuels that way. TEGs may be used, in the future, to increase the electrical output of fuel cells - but need further development for mass usage.

There is time for future developments to be adopted, but the storage of energy, for later use as motive power, will still require a store of some sort. Whether a chemical battery (such as at present or a futur development), super capacitors or other means not yet developed remains to be seen. There are some very clever people researching the possibilities all the time. Joe Public are streets behind the research results being amassed by those researchers.

It might be that our conventional thinking of an engine or motor powered vehicle on wheels is going the way of the dinosaurs . Using battery & infra red power to push out a stream of ionized electrons might end up propelling / floating on an electron cushion vehicles able to not need hard surface s to travel over .

 

[daleyd]

I reckon SCN (synthetic carbon neutral) fuel is going to reduce overall emissions a lot quicker than replacing every ICE engine on the planet with an EV (even if it were possible which it currently isn't).

I still remember the utter stupidity of encouraging diesel ownership in 2010...I wonder if EVs will be the same 10 years from now!

Maybe, maybe not, it’s certainly not at a large enough scale currently to compete.

It maybe that if it takes off and replaces petrol in the quantities we currently use then ICE will get a reprieve and carry on. Or even if not it can be used for things which just aren’t suited to battery power (of which undoubtedly there are many)

As I said, just because “something” is currently favoured it doesn’t mean that development stops on other things.

 

[Morrisman]

When I lived in the Netherlands for 3 years (they don't like the name Holland) ...I cycled and got public transport everywhere...that was around 2005.

UK infrastructure is a joke...I've never cycled here because I don't want to die!...and my refusal to use public transport needs no explanation I think.

They're pushing cycling here in the U.K. except the roads are so deliberately abysmal it's literally dangerous to cycle on many of them.

 

[DanZac]

They're pushing cycling here in the U.K. except the roads are so deliberately abysmal it's literally dangerous to cycle on many of them.

And even if you do take your life into your in own hands I can almost garuntee that when you arrive at your destination there won't be anywhere safe to leave your bike.

Supermarkets being some of the worst places without safe and secure bike parking!

 

[minimutly]

They're pushing cycling here in the U.K. except the roads are so deliberately abysmal it's literally dangerous to cycle on many of them.

Yes we seem to be able to cock up road design over and over. I was up in North Wales last week, the idiots have planted trees allong theAberystwyth to Newtown mountain road - right down tothe roadside....

 

[cheb]

Yes we seem to be able to cock up road design over and over. I was up in North Wales last week, the idiots have planted trees allong theAberystwyth to Newtown mountain road - right down tothe roadside....

Is that to stop people being able to park on the verge?

 

[Roger440]

Maybe, maybe not, it’s certainly not at a large enough scale currently to compete.

It maybe that if it takes off and replaces petrol in the quantities we currently use then ICE will get a reprieve and carry on. Or even if not it can be used for things which just aren’t suited to battery power (of which undoubtedly there are many)

As I said, just because “something” is currently favoured it doesn’t mean that development stops on other things.

You still dont seem to grasp the consequences of the government actions.

Even if, in 3 years time theres a reprieve, thats not going to help much. Car manufacturers plan model cycles many years in advance. Most will have ceased or be winding down development of ICE. For the reasons previously stated. You cant just chop and change you business on a ministers whim. Which sadly is increasingly how this country is run, and ceratinly one of the reasons im pleased that i dont own the business any more. The decisions become increasingly irrational and detached from reality.

Not being "favoured" doesnt stop development. Being banned by legislation certainly does.

Im not sure i can explain it any more than i have. Actions have consequences.

 

[daleyd]

You still dont seem to grasp the consequences of the government actions.

Even if, in 3 years time theres a reprieve, thats not going to help much. Car manufacturers plan model cycles many years in advance. Most will have ceased or be winding down development of ICE. For the reasons previously stated. You cant just chop and change you business on a ministers whim. Which sadly is increasingly how this country is run, and ceratinly one of the reasons im pleased that i dont own the business any more. The decisions become increasingly irrational and detached from reality.

Not being "favoured" doesnt stop development. Being banned by legislation certainly does.

Im not sure i can explain it any more than i have. Actions have consequences.

Of course actions have consequences. That’s the whole point isn’t it - to force change. What would be the point if nothing changed? We are being told by science that fossil fuels = bad - so “they” (as in governments worldwide) are forcing change upon us. That’s the whole crux of what they are trying to do. Some by legislating fossil fuels out of existence by emissions reductions, others by simply banning new petrol cars. But the result is the same, whichever way you want to look at it - ice is, as it stands at a dead end. Now as you rightly say something”may” come along and change that, but doesn’t it seem unlikely? And again, I’m not saying I particularly agree with anything that’s being legislated I’m just pointing out the realities.

What you are arguing for is to carry on as we are. I’d be happy with that, but it seems most of the bigwigs/science/“they” aren’t so here we are. You won’t just need to convince our government though…

“Being banned by legislation” is the reality of the situation - if they complied with legislation they wouldn’t be banned. It doesn’t matter whether they ban ice vehicles or they are banned because they don’t meet emissions requirements does it? The end result will be the same, manufacturers will look for something else.

 

[Morrisman]

Yes we seem to be able to cock up road design over and over. I was up in North Wales last week, the idiots have planted trees allong theAberystwyth to Newtown mountain road - right down tothe roadside....

I'll just leave this here....

 

[Morrisman]

And even if you do take your life into your in own hands I can almost garuntee that when you arrive at your destination there won't be anywhere safe to leave your bike.

Supermarkets being some of the worst places without safe and secure bike parking!

Friend of mine works in our local Asda. They have a secure shed/cage for employees to leave their bicycles. Yet they were still being stolen.
CCTV was pointed at the cage and it was eventually found that some incredibly skinny local crack head girl was sliding herself under the edge of the cage, no more than a 6" gap according to my mate, blagging a bike that wasn't chained, then letting herself out through the door.
There's a card lock on the outside of the door, but you can simply open the door from inside. Employees have been advised to chain their bikes up now.

 

[reb78]

You still dont seem to grasp the consequences of the government actions.

Even if, in 3 years time theres a reprieve, thats not going to help much. Car manufacturers plan model cycles many years in advance. Most will have ceased or be winding down development of ICE. For the reasons previously stated. You cant just chop and change you business on a ministers whim. Which sadly is increasingly how this country is run, and ceratinly one of the reasons im pleased that i dont own the business any more. The decisions become increasingly irrational and detached from reality.

Not being "favoured" doesnt stop development. Being banned by legislation certainly does.

Im not sure i can explain it any more than i have. Actions have consequences.

I get what you mean.

Look at other examples - strongly backing diesel cars and not backing nuclear - both very very strongly influenced, if not entirely driven, by governments and have led to something akin to turning the titanic around now. Trying to 'catch up' with a policy of building nuclear power stations is nigh on impossible given the timescales and just like some in this thread have indicated that EVs may be a temporary solution, one could have made the same argument for good nuclear power generation.

Government of any colour isnt well suited to this as policy changes as the party in charge changes, indeed, even as ministers change. Look at obamacare... he implemented it and Trump stopped it result = no progress over 15-20 years! - very much an outsider viewpoint as I dont reside there and found neither leader effective... although better than sleepy stumbly Joe perhaps... I don't know what the alternative is but putting these massive policy decisions in the hands of politicians seems a mistake... actually, perhaps you have hit on the alternative and if the aim is net zero, let industry work out how to get there.

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

My biggest fear with EVs are the batteries...from what I understand the self contained cocktail of lithium and oxides basically produces the potential for a self sustaining fire....unlike petrol where the "fuel" component can be smothered out with foam to exclude oxygen. Its fine if you can get out....but if you can't then what happens?

Did I get this totally wrong or am I right to be cautious?...