[News] 2030 and Electric cars.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,634
These conversations sometimes seem like another culture war front. Which is basically the last thing we need.

I do think there's a place for a bit of nudge theory from the authorities here. Just like with charging for carrier bags, they can make it less and less attractive to drive in cities and more and more attractive to take public transport or cycle.

My solution would be city ULEZ schemes. So for example, a £10 charge to get into Brighton and Hove if your vehicle is non compliant. Is it totally fair? Well no. But It's not totally fair that me and my kids breathe in air pollution every day either because we live on a route into the city.
If you don't want a culture war, perhaps a scheme designed to help those people who can afford more expensive cars at the expense of those who have older, cheaper cars, isn't the way forward.
 




Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
14,909
Almería
What would constitute unnecessarily?

The person who choses to drive makes the decision as to whether their journey is necessary or not. Certainly not for you to decide for others.

As for being selfish, that is not how society sees it.

Here's an example. My partner arranged to walk to a work meeting with a friend the other day, with their destination a little over 20 minutes away. On the day they met up at the agreed time and her friend said she was going to drive instead as it was a bit far.

Seems unnecessary to me when the journey is perfectly doable on foot on what was a pleasant sunny day. Seems like when people have a car they instinctively want to use it.

Their choice it may be but it means more congestion, more noise, more exhaust fumes and an unhealthier society.
 


Horses Arse

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2004
4,571
here and there
Here's an example. My partner arranged to walk to a work meeting with a friend the other day, with their destination a little over 20 minutes away. On the day they met up at the agreed time and her friend said she was going to drive instead as it was a bit far.

Seems unnecessary to me when the journey is perfectly doable on foot on what was a pleasant sunny day. Seems like when people have a car they instinctively want to use it.

Their choice it may be but it means more congestion, more noise, more exhaust fumes and an unhealthier society.
Absolutely. People are obsessed with car use. Even when traffic and parking issues result in very little difference in journey time between waking/cycling and driving.
 


Horses Arse

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2004
4,571
here and there
These conversations sometimes seem like another culture war front. Which is basically the last thing we need.

I do think there's a place for a bit of nudge theory from the authorities here. Just like with charging for carrier bags, they can make it less and less attractive to drive in cities and more and more attractive to take public transport or cycle.

My solution would be city ULEZ schemes. So for example, a £10 charge to get into Brighton and Hove if your vehicle is non compliant. Is it totally fair? Well no. But It's not totally fair that me and my kids breathe in air pollution every day either because we live on a route into the city.
I live in an area where ulez is being extended. So many people forced to sell perfectly serviceable cars because of it.

Individuals losing money and generating more co2 in the process so that the car industry can sell more cars and increase environmental destruction elsewhere.

These newer cars are still petrol and diesel cars that the manufacturers are pumping out too. Based on wonky emissions data no doubt.

Do you remember the scrappage schemes to allow people to buy those efficient diesel cars? You know, the ones that people are now being forced to sell at reduced cost. Sound familiar to the electric car push?

As for for pollution in cities, within the last decade designers were forced to include biomass boilers in city developments to meet building regs insane at the time, couldnt believe it was being fircesnon us. "Zero carbon innit". Now condemned due to air quality issues.

It's all about the economy and those lobbying to grow their sector. Powerful folk increasing their wealth at the cost of other's, both financially and health.
 






Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
A lot of those are illegally parked. If they've blocked the footpath enough that a person who needs mobility aids can't get through, they can be reported and face action.
Of course, It's just the all pervasive car culture which is ignored, laughed off or whataboutaried.

That's not going to change irrespective as to how the car is powered.
 


GOM

living vicariously
Aug 8, 2005
3,261
Leeds - but not the dirty bit
..., I do personally think battery driven will be ultimatley overtaken by hydrogen fuel cells
Do't hold your breath on that thought. Hydrogen fuel cells for cars have been dead in the water for ages.
The only clean way to produce the hydrogen is by using large amounts of electricity to split water, in fact more electricity than the energy you will get out of the hydrogen. Far simpler to use that electricity and put it straight into a battery.
All other methods rely on burning fossil fuels, no wonder the fossil fuel industry promotes this idea.
 


Audax

Boing boing boing...
Aug 3, 2015
3,269
Uckfield
Of course, It's just the all pervasive car culture which is ignored, laughed off or whataboutaried.

That's not going to change irrespective as to how the car is powered.
Indeed. There's a lot of very self-centered thinking (or non-thinking) going on with those drivers. As I mentioned a few posts back, there needs to be a big societal and governmental shift in attitudes towards cars. Few thoughts:

1. Enforcement. Those thoughtless drivers wouldn't be so thoughtless if the existing laws on parking were being properly enforced. Even where I live in Uckfield, there's areas with double yellows where people park anyway (half on the pavement) because they know there's no enforcement. Every time they get away with it, it just reinforces their thought process that it's "ok" to do. Enforcement doesn't need to be through putting more police / parking enforcement people on the streets. I'm aware of some areas where a "send us a photo, then we'll do the rest" official approach is being trialed.

2. Government needs to have the balls to put measures in place that discourage car ownership or where ownership is necessary, discourage the current tendency towards 4WD beasts; exceptions where needed. Start with the cities as part of a drive to decongest the roads so that public transport can be made more efficient.

3. Alongside the stick at 2., government needs to put in place carrots. Encourage the shift away from personal ownership and towards car clubs / as-needed short term payg leases.

4. Government needs to get serious about making sure that public transport is affordable enough that when people are making a decision on whether to use public transport or own a car, the financial side of that decision will always favour public transport.

(I could go on, but not got time right now!)
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,026
...

4. Government needs to get serious about making sure that public transport is affordable enough that when people are making a decision on whether to use public transport or own a car, the financial side of that decision will always favour public transport.

(I could go on, but not got time right now!)
i dont think they can do that unless they severely increase tax on cars. you must account for the convenience of personal transport, get in and go. thats worth a lot to people. many simply make journeys because they have the car, which otherwise wouldn't bother. i used to think simply better connections, more public would replace cars, but the stats show car journeys rise exponentially from the 60's while bus and rail stay flatish - there wasnt a replacement from public to private transport, there were billions of new passenger miles added.
(data here)

sounds defeatist? it is. government know about this, and the huge economic contribution it has, so nothing will change. the lease/share model will help some aspects though not really change the journey mile count.
 
Last edited:


Audax

Boing boing boing...
Aug 3, 2015
3,269
Uckfield
i dont think they can do that unless they severely increase tax on cars. you must account for the convenience of personal transport, get in and go. thats worth a lot to people. many simply make journeys because they have the car, which otherwise wouldn't bother. i used to think simply better connections, more public would replace cars, but the stats show car journeys rise exponentially from the 60's while bus and rail stay flatish - there wasnt a replacement from public to private transport, there were billions of new passenger miles added.
(data here)

sounds defeatist? it is. government know about this, and the huge economic contribution it has, so nothing will change. the lease/share model will help some aspects though not really change the journey mile count.
Yeah, not saying it will be easy. Especially given the current state of privatised rail (now there's an effing mess that needs to be sorted). IMO privatisation only works if there's a genuine prospect of creating market competition. Two big privatised sectors in the UK where that has never happened, and we're all suffering as result: rail and water.
 


GOM

living vicariously
Aug 8, 2005
3,261
Leeds - but not the dirty bit
Again Electric cars was/is/won't never about saving the planet and ALL about saving the car industry.
You don't even have to dig deep (no pun intended) to find the damage being done by mining for the components - but hey that's mainly in the third world so that's ok.



Instead of selling us massive wankpanzers to keep the occupants safe and f**k everyone else, the industry should have been going micro, sadly there's no profit in that.

...
Agreed electric cars on their own won't save the planet, but they are a piece in the jigsaw and a darn sight better option than burning fossils fuels.

Which components are you thinking of when you mention the damage being done by mining and in which third world countries ?
 




GOM

living vicariously
Aug 8, 2005
3,261
Leeds - but not the dirty bit
Here's an example. My partner arranged to walk to a work meeting with a friend the other day, with their destination a little over 20 minutes away. On the day they met up at the agreed time and her friend said she was going to drive instead as it was a bit far.

Seems unnecessary to me when the journey is perfectly doable on foot on what was a pleasant sunny day. Seems like when people have a car they instinctively want to use it.

Their choice it may be but it means more congestion, more noise, more exhaust fumes and an unhealthier society.
Apart from the congestion, electric cars would reduce the noise and help towards a healthier society because of the removal of the exhaust fumes.
 








CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 27, 2009
6,233
Shoreham Beach
Do't hold your breath on that thought. Hydrogen fuel cells for cars have been dead in the water for ages.
The only clean way to produce the hydrogen is by using large amounts of electricity to split water, in fact more electricity than the energy you will get out of the hydrogen. Far simpler to use that electricity and put it straight into a battery.
All other methods rely on burning fossil fuels, no wonder the fossil fuel industry promotes this idea.
Long distance mass transport, whether lorry or train, may end up favouring hydrogen, rather than logging around heavy batteries and allowing for prolonged charging times. This is a huge incentive for green hydrogen development. Hydrogen cars don't need to be parked on your property to charge overnight. In the short term I agree with you, but I think we will end up with a combination of solutions.
 


Audax

Boing boing boing...
Aug 3, 2015
3,269
Uckfield
How will the National Grid cope when all these (potentially millions?) of cars will be charging overnight?
Actually, the National Grid would *love* it if we charge over night. Although they'll love it less as the grid gets greener. Did you know that in the UK we have some two-way hydro-electric schemes where overnight they use excess electricity - not being used because everyone is asleep - to pump water from a downhill reservoir back into an uphill reservoir, before then releasing it back downhill again to generate electricity during the day? And the National Grid pays for that to happen; they pay for the power to be generated in the first place (because there's a lot of generation methods that can't just be switched off over night), then pay for it to be utilised charging a giant water battery, then pay for it to be generated again by that same giant water battery.

The problem is in day time charging, during peak-usage times. But again, tech is coming to the rescue (albeit slowly). The tech is available already for an electric car to be a fully integrated part of the grid. For those cars that have the tech built in, power can flow both ways from the car battery. Couple that with a smart car charger (eg myenergi's Zappi range) and enough two-way enabled cars and those EVs suddenly become a potentially useful part of balancing the grid. The smart charger charges them at a reduced cost during off-peak periods when the Grid needs power to be stored, and then returns it back to the grid during peak times if it's needed (for a payment back to the owner of the car). Obviously the smart charger includes controls that enable the owner of the EV to set certain conditions, such as "I need my car at X time, so don't drain the battery please".
 


luge

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2010
518
Electric Cars are likely to be part of the solution but more likely Hydrogen/Synthetic Fuels will make up the transport energy change. Several reasons why - but main ones are: amount of energy used for Lithium boring and massive infrastructure change needed across the network.

F1 have developed a synthetic fuel which is nearly ready for use. Once it can power a car for an entire race, they will use that exclusively - and it powers the engines we all have.

I used to love in south london and the change in the amount of shit in my snot upon moving back to sussex was incredible. Air Pollution is mega, and I support all those schemes.
 


Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
Agreed electric cars on their own won't save the planet, but they are a piece in the jigsaw and a darn sight better option than burning fossils fuels.

Which components are you thinking of when you mention the damage being done by mining and in which third world countries ?
There's a bazillion articles about mining lithium and the damage it causes.
I'm sure there are other components too.

Some of the aerial photography on the subject is starkly beautiful.
 




Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,429
Location Location
This . . . The cycling lanes, not all, but some, initiated in some areas are a f***ing embarrassment to anyone who can stand up straight, let alone ride a bike.

This has nothing to do with the Green party per se, it's all local twats and varires, quite literally by the mile.

It's not profitable at a level to interest anyone with any real power so will continue to be a shit show.

IMO. Obvs.
I've just got home from the westbound shitshow from the Palace Pier to the King Alfred. A totally empty and unused cycle lane poled off to my left, taking up what used to be the inside lane of a dual carriageway. RIGHT NEXT TO A PROMENADE CYCLE LANE, which was being fully utilised by cyclists. Literally not 5 yards adjacent. Oh, and thats in addition to that weird "lets have a line of cars parked in the middle of a main road" fuckfest. The result ? You crawl along for a couple of miles, belching fumes, in a journey that takes at least 3-4 times as long as it used to when it was still a dual carriageway.

Whichever buck-toothed yoghurt-knitting tweed-jacketed BERK came up with this abortion of a road plan should be dragged screaming from his cosy council office by his ponytail, forced to kneel down in the road in front of all the stationary traffic outside the Odeon, and ceremonially shot in the FACE. In front of his family.
 
Last edited:


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,026
Long distance mass transport, whether lorry or train, may end up favouring hydrogen, rather than logging around heavy batteries and allowing for prolonged charging times. This is a huge incentive for green hydrogen development. Hydrogen cars don't need to be parked on your property to charge overnight. In the short term I agree with you, but I think we will end up with a combination of solutions.
hydrogen is heavy too once encased in large compressed cylinders. best use for hydrogen is grid level storage where large scale storage of surpluses, provide on-demand energy will out weigh the conversion losses.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top