Electric-car charging costs soar

[Mr Bump]

I fixed that for you.

no you didn't but i bet you drive a diesel

 

[Pound Coin]

Not that old chestnut.
Firstly, there would have to be a vast improvement in public transport and not just in large towns and cities but rural areas as well and I don't see that happening in my or even my Grandchildren's lifetime.
I currently have to attend the local? hospital regularly if I had no transport I would either have to take 3 buses or 2 buses and a train along with a little walking which for some may be a problem, with each journey taking around 2 hours each way, a taxi that would cost me around £50-£60 or patient transport that depending on the routing could be up to 3 hours each way there's a long way to go before many me included will be giving up our private transport.

The reason that public transport doesn't work, and we are wedded to Private Transport is because of Private Transport. Unless we can create something that replaces cars, with limited effect on the environment, it isn't looking good!

It isn't an old chestnut, it is a critical new one.

 

[Pound Coin]

Humans with the means have always had private transport. Whether it be a car, motorcycle, horse, camel or donkey, people who can afford private transport have it. There is no way I, or 99% of people, would ever give up the ability to go wherever I want, whenever I want.

Well, you will find that they will give it up, or change massively. Either through economy (fuel prices, anyone?) or through dwindling resources, or through catastrophic climate change that kills off most of life as we know it.

 

[Pound Coin]

Firstly, there would have to be a vast improvement in public transport and not just in large towns and cities but rural areas as well and I don't see that happening in my or even my Grandchildren's lifetime.

I would imagine that your grandfather, if told that we would all be driving round in massive cars on our own, would say that he wouldn't see that happening...

 

[RichardC27]

Well, you will find that they will give it up, or change massively. Either through economy (fuel prices, anyone?) or through dwindling resources, or through catastrophic climate change that kills off most of life as we know it.

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again. It's not catastrophic, it won't kill off most life as we know it, the world will not end. It'll be different, and the climate is changing rapidly at the moment. But the climate is always changing and we're a long, long, long way off making the world too hot to be habitable. And bear in mind this is only over 500 million years, or about 10.8% of Earth's history. Ice caps, glaciers, the entire current state of the world is not fixed, even though for some reason we think it is.

Polar bears will go exctinct, but I wasn't dodging wooly mammoths or sabre toothed tigers on my way to work this morning either. Animals will either adapt, evolve into something else or die out. This is nothing new, and includes us as a species.

 

[ecoleman]

Electric cars of today will be like todays diesels.

Government telling us how great they are today and taxing them off the roads tomorrow.

No chance in hell I'd buy one.

I get 700 miles out of a tank of diesel. For how long and what will it cost to charge an EV to get that mileage?

 

[tarric]

the word is FUTURE not NOW
all the above you have stated need work but they will happen

Exactly the word is FUTURE and I'm sure in the future there will be far more user friendly and environmentally friendly means of transport than both Electricity and Hydrocarbons and we will have many more false dawns before we get there.

 

[Pound Coin]

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again. It's not catastrophic, it won't kill off most life as we know it, the world will not end. It'll be different, and the climate is changing rapidly at the moment. But the climate is always changing and we're a long, long, long way off making the world too hot to be habitable. And bear in mind this is only over 500 million years, or about 10.8% of Earth's history. Ice caps, glaciers, the entire current state of the world is not fixed, even though for some reason we think it is.

Polar bears will go exctinct, but I wasn't dodging wooly mammoths or sabre toothed tigers on my way to work this morning either. Animals will either adapt, evolve into something else or die out. This is nothing new, and includes us as a species.

View attachment 368082

The only vertical part of that graph is the bit by "Today". Given the horizontal time is 500 million years, that vertical bit should be 20/500,000,000 of the graph wide, it is not drawn to scale. So, not a great illustration.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

I get 700 miles out of a tank of diesel. For how long and what will it cost to charge an EV to get that mileage?

About £11 if you charge overnight.

 

[RichardC27]

The only vertical part of that graph is the bit by "Today". Given the horizontal time is 500 million years, that vertical bit should be 20/500,000,000 of the graph wide, it is not drawn to scale. So, not a great illustration.

There's a near vertical drop, and then a near vertical rebound, 450m years ago. A huge, huge drop 350m years ago. A small vertical spike around 90m years ago, and another absolutely vertical rise of about the same size as now, at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, before a sustained drop off to the historically cool climate of today.

Now, since we're told modern climate change is absolutely 100% only down to humans and fossil fuels, I can only assume that dinosaurs, ice age animals and everything before them were also driving, flying, burning all sorts of things to cause such climatic variations.

Or, an alternative and more accurate take, is that it's a hugely complex system in a constant state of flux and influenced by all sorts of things. Now, burning a load of fossil fuels and adding a load of heating gasses to that already complex isn't a great idea, but as we can see from the chart, we've hardly knocked the whole thing off balance have we? Temperatures are currently still well below average.

I'd also note that none of the huge swings in that chart resulted in an uninhabitable, dead planet. As the famous line goes, life finds a way, and to think we're going to kill all life is just absurd. CO2 levels in the Jurassic were 4 times what they are now, 1600ppm and life thrived. Climate change isn't a catastrophe, it's just different. And we, along with everything else, will adapt, evolve, or die out.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

There's a near vertical drop, and then a near vertical rebound, 450m years ago. A huge, huge drop 350m years ago. A small vertical spike around 90m years ago, and another absolutely vertical rise of about the same size as now, at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, before a sustained drop off to the historically cool climate of today.

Now, since we're told modern climate change is absolutely 100% only down to humans and fossil fuels, I can only assume that dinosaurs, ice age animals and everything before them were also driving, flying, burning all sorts of things to cause such climatic variations.

Or, an alternative and more accurate take, is that it's a hugely complex system in a constant state of flux and influenced by all sorts of things. Now, burning a load of fossil fuels and adding a load of heating gasses to that already complex isn't a great idea, but as we can see from the chart, we've hardly knocked the whole thing off balance have we? Temperatures are currently still well below average.

I'd also note that none of the huge swings in that chart resulted in an uninhabitable, dead planet. As the famous line goes, life finds a way, and to think we're going to kill all life is just absurd. CO2 levels in the Jurassic were 4 times what they are now, 1600ppm and life thrived. Climate change isn't a catastrophe, it's just different. And we, along with everything else, will adapt, evolve, or die out.

There has never been a change at the same rate as there is now.

I'll believe the experts as opposed to some people on a photography forum.

 

[wyx087]

I assume the mining, refining and transportation of all the lithium and other metals for the battery, and its disposal when it's worn out is completely energy free then? It's a well known fact that you have to drive tens of thousands of miles in an EV before you start having a positive impact.

And we're going to need these liquid fuels anyway, for air and sea travel. You can't have an international airliner powered by batteries because of their shockingly low energy denisity.

Lets look at batteries. What materials do they need and how are they obtained?

Until you look at the whole thing you're simply deluding yourself.

The total lifetime impact of EV is vastly less than ICE. A very quick google search comes up with many researches. For example, this graph clearly clearly shows whole-life impact of ICE vs EV: https://theicct.org/publication/a-g...ombustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/

After life in EV, the battery can still be used as stationary energy storage for many more years. Only after that it need to be recycled. Probably 20-30 years after initial production.


Please provide sources on how many miles in an EV before start to have less impact than ICE cars? I think it is usually quoted to be around first 3 years and much less than half of typical lifetime mileage of a typical car. So..... are you actually agreeing that lifetime EV climate impact is less than ICE?

Sea travel and airline is where hydrogen (must be green) makes sense. But very rare cases where hydrogen makes any sense in passenger cars.

Yes in a car more of the energy ends up turning the wheels in a BEV, but a Tesla long-range battery pack weighs something like 550kg. A fuel cell doesn't. And a hydrogen future would allow those of us who value driving enjoyment to carry on with enjoyable cars without damaging the planet anywhere near as much.

How does endurance racing work with batteries? It doesn't. Or do we swap cars at every pitstop, a la early Formula E? That's not very efficient either.

Have you driven a hydrogen fuel cell car? Or a Tesla?
The former will feel much worse to drive than the latter because the amount of power available at an instance is so much different. A hydrogen cell car will feel like driving a low powered EV because you are limited to the fuel cell conversion rate, yet it is still electric motor driven like an EV.

Formula E has stopped swapping cars for many years now. Single car for entire race. How does endurance racing work? Re-energise the vehicle mid-way just like liquid fuel. Rapid charge for 20min.

How long do you enjoy your drive without stopping? 3 hours? 5 hours? When you stop, the car is sat doing nothing. 3 hours in UK roads drives around 200 miles. This is easily achievable with more of today's EV. Drive 3 hours, you take a comfort break while car recharge 30min and continue your journey. During daily use, wake up to a fully charged battery without ever visiting any public infrastructure.

It says a lot that governments are having to ban ICE vehicles. Nobody had to ban horses when the car was invented, as it was clearly better. BEVs are worse in almost every way, hence the requirement for a ban to force people to buy them.

What does it say a lot?
The Big Oil and traditional entrenched auto industry have a HUGE lobbying presence in all corners of polities. All of which are interested to resist change and continue doing what is profitable. Without government intervention BEV will take a lot longer to reach mass adoption.

The goal is not to get people to buy BEV, the goal is to stop burning fossil fuel. ICE burns fossil fuel so it has to be banned. It's simple as X is bad so we ban X.


Now we are on climate denials.
This is a good read should anyone consider believing individuals rather than scientific consensus:

Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tarric]

Humans with the means have always had private transport. Whether it be a car, motorcycle, horse, camel or donkey, people who can afford private transport have it. There is no way I, or 99% of people, would ever give up the ability to go wherever I want, whenever I want.

It's not just about the ability to go wherever I want, whenever I want, it's also the practicalities of day-to-day life, as I said public transport would have to improve vastly before even some would think about changing their car for it. Where I live, we have a regular bus service no trains and one owner driver taxi and by regular bus service 6 buses in each direction Monday to Saturday first bus at 7am and last bus at 5pm into town and first bus at 9am and last bus at 6pm from town only 3 buses each way on Sunday OK for work if you work in the centre but not much good for anything else and I'm sure that there are many places just as bad or worse in provision of public transport.

 

[ecoleman]

About £11 if you charge overnight.

So, 4 days to drive 700 miles?

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

So, 4 days to drive 700 miles?

If you regularly drive 700 miles a day without stopping then an electric car obviously isn't suited to you.

If you do it twice a year, no issue as most people would stop for 15/20 minutes on a drive like that anyway.

People just look for obstacles.

 

[RichardC27]

The total lifetime impact of EV is vastly less than ICE. A very quick google search comes up with many researches. For example, this graph clearly clearly shows whole-life impact of ICE vs EV: https://theicct.org/publication/a-g...ombustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/

After life in EV, the battery can still be used as stationary energy storage for many more years. Only after that it need to be recycled. Probably 20-30 years after initial production.


Please provide sources on how many miles in an EV before start to have less impact than ICE cars? I think it is usually quoted to be around first 3 years and much less than half of typical lifetime mileage of a typical car. So..... are you actually agreeing that lifetime EV climate impact is less than ICE?

Sea travel and airline is where hydrogen (must be green) makes sense. But very rare cases where hydrogen makes any sense in passenger cars.

But this assumes that ICE cars continue with fossil fuels, which isn't something anybody is advocating. If you take the Fuel consumption part of the chart out for ICE cars, assuming carbon neutral liquid fuel, the charts are much closer in terms of CO2 impact. Being green is more than CO2, as the article I shared before about the massive impact of lithium mining for batteries shows. This also doesn't take into account the impact of building all the new infrastructure for EVs, whereas synthetic fuel could be used largely in existing petrol / diesel infrastructure. The number of miles driven before an EV starts to have a benefit depends a lot on the energy mix used to provide the electricity, but can be as much as 70,000 miles in countries like the US with a lot of fossil fuel powered electricity generation.

I've been in several BEVs, including Teslas and it leaves me cold. I'm just not interested, and I won't buy one. It's everything I don't want from my car. Hence, as I said earlier, give me a way to enjoy my hobby and interest in a much more environmentally friendly way. I said BEVs will be part of the mix but they cannot be the sole solution. Most people don't care for noise, involvement, a manual gearbox and they will be happy in their glorified overweight milk float. I won't be, so give me the option to drive something else without using fossil fuels. I'm not saying carry on with petrol, I'm saying give people a choice. Synthetic fuels also have the benefit of being a drop in solution for, as I said earlier, the many millions of ICE vehicles that will be around for decades to come.

You say ICE burns fossil fuels so has to be banned. Not true, an ICE will burn anything it can in a controlled manner. The engine isn't the problem, the fuel is.

And a re-fuelling stop in a current endurance race takes about 30 seconds, not 20 minutes. 20 minute stops aren't really feasible.

 

[Mr Bump]

If you regularly drive 700 miles a day without stopping then an electric car obviously isn't suited to you.

If you do it twice a year, no issue as most people would stop for 15/20 minutes on a drive like that anyway.

People just look for obstacles.

dinosaurs mate and we know what happened to them

 

[Cobra]

dinosaurs mate and we know what happened to them

Well if we get struck by a meteor, EV's v ICE's will be the least of our problems.

 

[wyx087]

But this assumes that ICE cars continue with fossil fuels, which isn't something anybody is advocating. If you take the Fuel consumption part of the chart out for ICE cars, assuming carbon neutral liquid fuel, the charts are much closer in terms of CO2 impact. Being green is more than CO2, as the article I shared before about the massive impact of lithium mining for batteries shows. This also doesn't take into account the impact of building all the new infrastructure for EVs, whereas synthetic fuel could be used largely in existing petrol / diesel infrastructure. The number of miles driven before an EV starts to have a benefit depends a lot on the energy mix used to provide the electricity, but can be as much as 70,000 miles in countries like the US with a lot of fossil fuel powered electricity generation.

So you are using magical unicorn poo for power source? Where does that power source come from? Is there associated CO2 emission with that power source to create the fuel?

Carbon neutral liquid fuel is a total lie. To achieve carbon neutral, there has to be a process to generate the fuel, this process needs electricity or other kind of power. The burning process also produces emissions.
Same smokescreen is used for today's ICE car calculations, always from fuel tank to wheels, never from fossil fuel extraction, through refinery to wheels. All of which require HUGE amount of resources and do large amount of damages to the environment and exploitation of foreign lands.

Iraq invasion was about oil | Nafeez Ahmed

Maximising Persian Gulf oil flows to avert a potential global energy crisis motivated Iraq War planners - not WMD or democracy

www.theguardian.com

I've been in several BEVs, including Teslas and it leaves me cold. I'm just not interested, and I won't buy one. It's everything I don't want from my car. Hence, as I said earlier, give me a way to enjoy my hobby and interest in a much more environmentally friendly way.

And a hydrogen future would allow those of us who value driving enjoyment to carry on with enjoyable cars

I'm super confused, are you saying hydrogen fuel cell is the future? Because that is still electric cars and has all the worst things about EV's.
If you are saying burning hydrogen, all burning still produces NOx. It's just diesel of tomorrow.

Given the massive amount of trouble caused to people with a minor emission scandal fix or E10 fuel minor adjustment. I'm not sure synaesthetic fuel can be as easily rolled out as you say. Sure it can be a drop-in replacement, then why hasn't it been rolled out right now? Is there any reason why petrol stations are still selling petrol?

There's a technology that is ready right now, when buying new car, buying this one cuts total lifetime emission of the car by 2/3. Sure driving it is different experience, but in the grand scale of human self-destruction, that should be the very least of the worry.

 

[wyx087]

Well if we get struck by a meteor, EV's v ICE's will be the least of our problems.

Don't worry, NASA has got a solution for that.

I think that's the single case where burning stuff is OK

 

[ecoleman]

no issue as most people would stop for 15/20 minutes on a drive like that anyway.

Then it's not going to cost you £11 is it?
and you've got to stop 3-4 times

Motorway services hike electric car charging costs

It can cost '8p a mile more than filling up with petrol or diesel'

www.walesonline.co.uk

 

[RichardC27]

So you are using magical unicorn poo for power source? Where does that power source come from? Is there associated CO2 emission with that power source to create the fuel?

Carbon neutral liquid fuel is a total lie. To achieve carbon neutral, there has to be a process to generate the fuel, this process needs electricity or other kind of power. The burning process also produces emissions.
Same smokescreen is used for today's ICE car calculations, always from fuel tank to wheels, never from fossil fuel extraction, through refinery to wheels. All of which require HUGE amount of resources and do large amount of damages to the environment and exploitation of foreign lands.

Iraq invasion was about oil | Nafeez Ahmed

Maximising Persian Gulf oil flows to avert a potential global energy crisis motivated Iraq War planners - not WMD or democracy

www.theguardian.com

I'm super confused, are you saying hydrogen fuel cell is the future? Because that is still electric cars and has all the worst things about EV's.
If you are saying burning hydrogen, all burning still produces NOx. It's just diesel of tomorrow.

Given the massive amount of trouble caused to people with a minor emission scandal fix or E10 fuel minor adjustment. I'm not sure synaesthetic fuel can be as easily rolled out as you say. Sure it can be a drop-in replacement, then why hasn't it been rolled out right now? Is there any reason why petrol stations are still selling petrol?

There's a technology that is ready right now, when buying new car, buying this one cuts total lifetime emission of the car by 2/3. Sure driving it is different experience, but in the grand scale of human self-destruction, that should be the very least of the worry.

We can argue about this all day long, but neither of us are going to change our minds. I'll never buy a BEV, ever, and you think they're amazing. That's fine. My sincere hope is there is an alternative, for the many people around the world who want to continue enjoying ICE cars. If we can buy new ones, great, and if not we'll all just keep driving old ones.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Then it's not going to cost you £11 is it?

Motorway services hike electric car charging costs

It can cost '8p a mile more than filling up with petrol or diesel'

www.walesonline.co.uk

For 99% of the year yes, £11 would get you 700 miles.

But no, on the occasional long journey, you'd pay more for the second half of the journey.

But it would average out as at a considerable cost saving vs petrol or diesel.

And some very basic maths gets us back to "If you're doing that kind of mileage regularly, EV probably isn't going to be a good option"

 

[wyx087]

We can argue about this all day long, but neither of us are going to change our minds. I'll never buy a BEV, ever, and you think they're amazing. That's fine. My sincere hope is there is an alternative, for the many people around the world who want to continue enjoying ICE cars. If we can buy new ones, great, and if not we'll all just keep driving old ones.

Fair enough. I'm only pointing out gaps in your logic that is very biased and often ignores the fundamentals.

I do truly think EV are the future for personal transport. And I've voted with my wallet, zero ICE in my family. Next thing to get rid would be my gas boiler..... when it breaks.

Then it's not going to cost you £11 is it?
and you've got to stop 3-4 times

Motorway services hike electric car charging costs

It can cost '8p a mile more than filling up with petrol or diesel'

www.walesonline.co.uk

700 miles road trip in any car? That's going to be well over 11 hours drive. So normally people would stop for 3-5 times anyway.

In an good 300 miles EV, it would only need 2 driver rest stops whilst the car charge and will cost: £5.66 for first 300 miles (4 mi/kWh, 7.5p/kWh) and rest 400 miles cost £67 (4 mi/kWh, 67p/kWh). Total cost £73 when you do this in one day. Daily commute within 300 miles and EV will cost must much less as Andy said.

700 miles in a diesel would be about 55 litres? (please correct me if I'm wrong) - so that translates to £93.5 at £1.70 per litre. But that's always, from buying the car to end of your ownership, you need to pay £90 for every 700 miles.

UK longest route drive in a single day, Wiki says Google says 14 hours 40 minute, done in an EV in 15 hours 24min.

View: https://youtu.be/bM5hYkEXOVM

 

[Deleted member 95743]

Maybe I have missed something, but where did anyone say that they were actually driving 700 miles per day.

 

[RichardC27]

Fair enough. I'm only pointing out gaps in your logic that is very biased and often ignores the fundamentals.

I do truly think EV are the future for personal transport. And I've voted with my wallet, zero ICE in my family. Next thing to get rid would be my gas boiler..... when it breaks.

I'm a car enthusiast, a petrol head if you like. A car isn't a purely logical thing for me.
I'm passionate about motorsport, and cannot say enough how much the thought of everything being EV fills me with dread. Who wants to watch silent motor racing? This is why I'm so enthusiastic about the alternatives, as otherwise my entire hobby and interest is gone. I will vote with my wallet. Zero EV for me. Give people a choice.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Maybe I have missed something, but where did anyone say that they were actually driving 700 miles per day.

Of course they're not, but admitting that they'd need a range of far less than 300 miles 363 days of the year would blow their whole anti-ev argument out of the water...

 

[badlywornroy]

Electric cars of today will be like todays diesels.

Government telling us how great they are today and taxing them off the roads tomorrow.

No chance in hell I'd buy one.

I get 700 miles out of a tank of diesel. For how long and what will it cost to charge an EV to get that mileage?

I‘m pretty sure the costs on my initial post only applied to Public rapid chargers.. Charging from home is still cheaper, but by how much and for how long who knows ?

 

[who?]

Gosh, some real dinosaurs on here; good to see some people talking sense.

Lots of whataboutery and misinformation.
People should realise that the oil industry is basically where the tobacco industry was when it was claiming cigs were good for you. Spending lots of money to protect their business even though they know that its killing the planet.

Electric is the cleanest option by far. From production, through use and then cleanup/recycling afterwards.

Hydrogen has a limited industrial application - its a non-starter for personal transport. Touted as 'clean' the reality is that almost all hydrogen is currently produced from hydrocarbons and even if it was made from electrolysis the efficiency is terrible, lots of issues with storage/transport. Hydrogen enbrittlement is an issue (those hydrogen powered toyotas need the h2 system completely replacing at 10 yrs old).
H2 is only viable in systems where the efficiency and cost dont matter - so shipping and some industrial processes, maybe mass transit systems.

Climate change is real and is here now - anyone trying to deny that is fooling themselves, not understanding or lying.

In terms of cost of ev's, a new ev is already cheaper than the equivilent ice over the lifespan of the car. comparing like for like new car purchases. Obviously a new ev costs more than your 10 yr old diesel, but so what? so does a new diesel. I think the last report I saw said e-golf takes less than 2 years to be ahead of the ice golf for environmental impact and 5 yrs to be ahead on cost.

Afforable evs? MG4 is £25k for 200 mile range or £30k for 280 miles. Or ZS EV if you want an suv.
Plenty of interesting cars coming to market - BYD, Xpeng, etc sold in europe but not the uk yet.

e-corsa/emokka/e-208/e2008 are nice cars and sensible prices.
Kia/hyundai kona/niro good options.

 

[wyx087]

I'm a car enthusiast, a petrol head if you like. A car isn't a purely logical thing for me.
I'm passionate about motorsport, and cannot say enough how much the thought of everything being EV fills me with dread. Who wants to watch silent motor racing? This is why I'm so enthusiastic about the alternatives, as otherwise my entire hobby and interest is gone. I will vote with my wallet. Zero EV for me. Give people a choice.

That's all we can do really. I personally don't agree with your choices but I'm not trying to change that.

I used to really like cars. But later got tired of shifting gears in traffic. Then beginning to hugely dislike automatic gearboxes. Finally discovering EV's and fallen in love with the way it drives.

I'm of the view that everything has to be based in facts or scientific consensus. All arguments will have a different side. Hence my earlier rather harsh replies based on facts and I've provided as much sources as I can. Let's all base arguments on facts and provide sources.

 

[Tigger.ufo]

As I’ve said before though I probably shouldn’t comment on these threads as I ride a old Yamaha two stroke bike
But it’s 38 years old still running and all parts needed to keep it going are still available
May be forced in the end to drive an electric car but no way I’m getting an electric motorbike, a bike has to have an engine soul.

FTFY

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

I'm a car enthusiast, a petrol head if you like. A car isn't a purely logical thing for me.
I'm passionate about motorsport, and cannot say enough how much the thought of everything being EV fills me with dread. Who wants to watch silent motor racing? This is why I'm so enthusiastic about the alternatives, as otherwise my entire hobby and interest is gone. I will vote with my wallet. Zero EV for me. Give people a choice.

No one can argue with "I just prefer ice cars". It's a valid reason.

People just argue with the nonsense anti EV arguments and people who pretend a 300+ mile range wouldn't be enough for the vast majority of people. Especially when you can charge it at home very cheaply.

 

[RichardC27]

No one can argue with "I just prefer ice cars". It's a valid reason.

People just argue with the nonsense anti EV arguments and people who pretend a 300+ mile range wouldn't be enough for the vast majority of people. Especially when you can charge it at home very cheaply.

And that is it for me. If I wasn't a car enthusiast I really wouldn't care. In fact I'd probably like a silent car with no gears. In a way I guess I'm resigned to having a classic car in the garage for fun and not going to anywhere near as many race meetings as I do now, just a couple of historic events a year. Hence my support for alternative liquid fuels to keep it all alive in as environmentally friendly way as possible.

I would have a counter argument that the fact you don't need a 300 or 400 mile range 99% of the time means you're carrying around a few hundred kilos of battery you don't need almost all the time Like I've said, my in laws are an EV only family (Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf and some sort of small DS SUV). They've been that way for many, many years so I do have plenty of exposure to them, I'm not coming at it from a position of never having experienced EVs.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

I would have a counter argument that the fact you don't need a 300 or 400 mile range 99% of the time means you're carrying around a few hundred kilos of battery you don't need almost all the time Like I've said, my in laws are an EV only family (Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf and some sort of small DS SUV). They've been that way for many, many years so I do have plenty of exposure to them, I'm not coming at it from a position of never having experienced EVs.

You could, but unless you're driving a 1l, you'd have to accept it as bit of a hypocritical argument as apart from track days you don't *need* an engine that gives you good acceleration or top speed either

 

[RichardC27]

You could, but unless you're driving a 1l, you'd have to accept it as bit of a hypocritical argument as apart from track days you don't *need* an engine that gives you good acceleration or top speed either

True, but if it was just about acceleration then most EVs leave a combustion car standing. Can't the Plaid powertrain Teslas do 0-60 in under 2 seconds? And some of the Porsche Taycan models can go sub 2 seconds as well I think. See, this can go on all day

 

[Pound Coin]

There's a near vertical drop, and then a near vertical rebound, 450m years ago. A huge, huge drop 350m years ago. A small vertical spike around 90m years ago, and another absolutely vertical rise of about the same size as now, at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, before a sustained drop off to the historically cool climate of today.

Now, since we're told modern climate change is absolutely 100% only down to humans and fossil fuels, I can only assume that dinosaurs, ice age animals and everything before them were also driving, flying, burning all sorts of things to cause such climatic variations.

Or, an alternative and more accurate take, is that it's a hugely complex system in a constant state of flux and influenced by all sorts of things. Now, burning a load of fossil fuels and adding a load of heating gasses to that already complex isn't a great idea, but as we can see from the chart, we've hardly knocked the whole thing off balance have we? Temperatures are currently still well below average.

I'd also note that none of the huge swings in that chart resulted in an uninhabitable, dead planet. As the famous line goes, life finds a way, and to think we're going to kill all life is just absurd. CO2 levels in the Jurassic were 4 times what they are now, 1600ppm and life thrived. Climate change isn't a catastrophe, it's just different. And we, along with everything else, will adapt, evolve, or die out.

They aren't vertical. The angles are clear to see, and a reminder - that graph is across 500,000,000 years.

The changes now are vertical on that graph, and they are down to us burning stuff. Denial doesn't change that fact.

 

[RichardC27]

They aren't vertical. The angles are clear to see, and a reminder - that graph is across 500,000,000 years.

The changes now are vertical on that graph, and they are down to us burning stuff. Denial doesn't change that fact.

Not a shred of denial in anything I've written. I've said the climate is changing, rapidly, and that burning fossil fuels isn't a great idea. It's the doom and gloom, armageddon is coming stuff that I simply don't agree with. Not totally agreeing with your viewpoint isn't denial. My point is the planet is constantly changing. Sea levels aren't permanent, they change loads. Humans used to live on land in what is now the North Sea, but the climate changed, sea levels rose and now its underwater. We're fixated on keeping things exactly as they are now, which is both arbitrary and impossible.

 

[Pound Coin]

Not a shred of denial in anything I've written. I've said the climate is changing, rapidly, and that burning fossil fuels isn't a great idea. It's the doom and gloom, armageddon is coming stuff that I simply don't agree with. Not totally agreeing with your viewpoint isn't denial. My point is the planet is constantly changing. Sea levels aren't permanent, they change loads. Humans used to live on land in what is now the North Sea, but the climate changed, sea levels rose and now its underwater. We're fixated on keeping things exactly as they are now, which is both arbitrary and impossible.

It is not the change. It is the rate of change.

Conflating the two is a classic denialist approach.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Not a shred of denial in anything I've written.

While I agree with you entirely, there's little point in arguing with the Thunbergistas.

They'd much rather superglue themselves to your driveway than look at the facts objectively and figure out what compromises will cause the least pain for the fewest people.

 

[Nod]

Zero EV for me.

Just for you, Richard...

Welcome To Zero Motorcycles

Manufacturer of 100% electric motorcycles for the street and dirt.

www.zeromotorcycles.com