I wouldn't buy a electric car from

[Twozaskars]

Re:

Don't fancy trawling through every single post but mostly agree with LGF on page one. I live on an estate built during the 70's and 80's so there's just about enough room currently for all the cars here. My kids won't be able to afford houses though so In three years we could have two more cars here because there's not much in the way of public transport. I own a 29 year old Renault 5, 1.2. It's great and exceeds 40mpg with ease. We also own an almost new petrol 1.0 fiesta that my mrs uses everyday for work (because she would spend 4hours+ on / waiting for buses vs 30 mins in car) Note the word 'own'. Not every shiny new car is on tick. I saved up for it because I really, really wanted it and I've worked hard for it. It does concern me that all these people are just going for lease agreements so they can keep up, as all this irresponsible borrowing previously came to a head 10 years ago which I guess these people forgot? I own a land Rover too but we won't talk about that....
Anyway, if Musk really cares about the future of the planet and believes everyone should drive leccy cars - why on earth doesn't he build cars people can actually afford?? Where is he getting the lithium for his batteries if he's not digging it out of the ground somewhere?
I've been guilty myself of falling for the SUV marketing and while I believe everyone should be allowed to spend their money on whatever they like, find it strange that so many people buy these cars just to sit in city traffic. I think the best two solutions are to improve public transport (use the HS2 money perhaps?) and encourage people to actually work near where they live instead of driving an hour to the next city or whatever.

 

[CassidyAce]

Re:

. . . and encourage people to actually work near where they live instead of driving an hour to the next city or whatever.

Ain't that the truth? From food miles to the separation between home and work, since the industrial revolution, modern societies were first enabled by engine-powered transport and now they require it. Our social structures and processes are more highly distantiated; that requires transport; transport requires stored energy; using stored energy creates byproducts that are higher in entropy than the fuel was; those entropic byproducts constitute pollution, whether that's in the form of 'spent' lithium batteries, exhaust fumes from combusted fossil fuels or nuclear material used to generate the electricity that charges batteries. Surely, the only really sustainable solution to the transport problem is to require less transport. Electric cars can only lessen the problem in the short term; they don't solve the problem in the long run, unless they become so efficient that the generation of pollution falls to a lower rate than the rate at which the earth can absorb that pollution and render it harmless.

 

[legrandefromage]

https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/17/electric ... n-8048606/

 

[Twozaskars]

Re:

Stories like that lead me more into believing that being persuaded to buy electric cars is all just a trick, like being persuaded to buy diesels which for many is a waste of money. Yes, my mrs is missing her 50mpg but she's got a newer, nicer car in having a petrol which is really still THE best compromise in running emissions, c to g emissions, range, performance and price.

 

[CassidyAce]

https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/17/electric-cars-can-actually-release-more-co2-than-diesels-experts-warn-8048606/

Yep. It's the full product lifecycle that should be considered, from manufacture to disposal, and including maintenance and the process of acquiring fuel/energy when the vehicle is with the consumer.

 

[legrandefromage]

Kind of what we knew already - anyone who travels as a day job will see these things flying past flat out

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46152853

 

[torqueless]

Re:

unless they become so efficient that the generation of pollution falls to a lower rate than the rate at which the earth can absorb that pollution and render it harmless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

 

[CassidyAce]

Re: Re:

unless they become so efficient that the generation of pollution falls to a lower rate than the rate at which the earth can absorb that pollution and render it harmless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Good point and, yes, that's unlikely. I was thinking more about the waste disposal side of things.

However, the Jevons paradox is easy to turn into an excuse for not trying to improve efficiency. (And ' technological optimism' itself is often used to suggest that we won't have to make sacrifices.) I suppose the key weakness of Jevons, though, is not that it might not apply to some improvements in energy efficiency; rather, that it has nothing to say about how easily the pollutants are absorbed by the earth. In other words, it's focused on resource use rather than waste products, and the specific types of pollutant matter: some pollutants are extremely harmful even in small quantities whereas others are tolerable, (i.e. cause less harm, break down more easily, etc.) in much larger quantities.

Well made retrobikes should be okay. (Except for the carbon fibre ones.)

 

[legrandefromage]

According to some stuff on the internet it takes two years for a Leaf to pay back its battery assembly in greenessness. A Tesla takes five years before it can be considered green.

 

[mattr]

A Tesla takes five years before it can be considered green.

In which time it could well be on its second battery........ (depending on use of supercharging and ludicrous mode.)