Death knell for petrol and diesel cars?

Seweryn

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

@Seweryn has a bicycle with higher mileage that a lot of cars!

Haha . There you go... You pay all that motor tax in case you ever need your old car and then you cycle... As I said before some peopople are weird .

cnocbui

Mike9832 wrote: »

Leaf62 is fast

218bhp

Yeah, it's about the same straight line performance as my Civic. In the UK it's £9,000 more than the current FK8 Civic Type R and a lot, lot slower. The price difference would let you buy enough petrol to drive the Civic about 90,000 km before breaking even on price. You'd never break even on fun.

Wibbs

cnocbui wrote: »

In the UK it's £9,000 more than the current FK8 Civic Type R and a lot, lot slower. The price difference would let you buy enough petrol to drive the Civic about 90,000 km before breaking even on price.

Feck! That really puts some of it into context. :eek:

Mike9832

cnocbui wrote: »

Yeah, it's about the same straight line performance as my Civic. In the UK it's £9,000 more than the current FK8 Civic Type R and a lot, lot slower. The price difference would let you buy enough petrol to drive the Civic about 90,000 km before breaking even on price. You'd never break even on fun.

Exactly

Good car the Leaf62 but for €40,000 I expect alot more

pwurple

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You seem incapable of understanding basic chat that doesn't fit your agenda. It takes 2 minutes to put 20 of petrol in, 20 for the equivalent to a battery IF there is no one in front of you. I note you don't describe what car is fast charged in 20 minutes, like you said, which is what I asked.

Shall I presume the evasion in all your posts is because you actually have no answer?

I don't know do combustion engine car drivers need to forget about petrol stations and fast chargers altogether for simplicity sake. Because those things are fairly irrelevant to most normal day to day drivers. EVs destination charge.

I drive to work. While I work, the car sits in the carpark "refueling" itself.


That's the end of the story for me and the other EV drivers I know in person.


And unless your job is driving all day, and you never sleep, there is some part of the day when the car is idle. Just sitting there. Parked. That's when it charges.

AMKC

Myself I would think its a Toyota maybe the new Corolla or a Prius but I am not an expert. Nothing over 30k. Sure Audi probably have something amazing but you need to win the lotto to drive one so that's a no no.

elperello

I'm hearing good things about the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV.
You would get a fresh second hand one for 30k.

HBC08

pwurple wrote: »

I don't know do combustion engine car drivers need to forget about petrol stations and fast chargers altogether for simplicity sake. Because those things are fairly irrelevant to most normal day to day drivers. EVs destination charge.

I drive to work. While I work, the car sits in the carpark "refueling" itself.



That's the end of the story for me and the other EV drivers I know in person.


And unless your job is driving all day, and you never sleep, there is some part of the day when the car is idle. Just sitting there. Parked. That's when it charges.

Thats great for you.
My job isnt driving all day,I work 5k from my home,my missus about 20k.
There is no charge points at either of our work places.We live in a town house without official designated parking.
We like to regularly go away for weekends and would often rack up 500km or more on a trip.
We cant afford 40k on a new car or 2 new cars.
We both drive ICE cars and will continue to do so like the majority of the country for medium to long term.
I doubt Im the only person in this situation.

Dravokivich

pwurple wrote: »

I don't know do combustion engine car drivers need to forget about petrol stations and fast chargers altogether for simplicity sake. Because those things are fairly irrelevant to most normal day to day drivers. EVs destination charge.

I drive to work. While I work, the car sits in the carpark "refueling" itself.


That's the end of the story for me and the other EV drivers I know in person.


And unless your job is driving all day, and you never sleep, there is some part of the day when the car is idle. Just sitting there. Parked. That's when it charges.

Charges on what? You cant expect a plug to be available to you everywhere you go, can you?

kaahooters

Dravokivich wrote: »

Charges on what? You cant expect a plug to be available to you everywhere you go, can you?

Actually, why not?

Shefwedfan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

All cars can fast charge....

You have come up with a BS requirement....doesn’t matter what anyone answers you will twist with some more
BS

I haven’t even mentioned in this imaginary little island place so they have no electricity?? You could just plug in a granny charger all day to a standard socket :-)

I suppose you will say it has no plugs next

The someone in front of you is crap as well....IONITY has a bank of charger so your chances of been blocked are minimal but you keep up that argumen
The fear is strong young padawan

This is at least the 3rd post you borderline insult me. But still no answers......

Gumbo

cnocbui wrote: »

Yeah, it's about the same straight line performance as my Civic. In the UK it's £9,000 more than the current FK8 Civic Type R and a lot, lot slower. The price difference would let you buy enough petrol to drive the Civic about 90,000 km before breaking even on price. You'd never break even on fun.

What’s the price difference here, in Ireland?

Shefwedfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is at least the 3rd post you borderline insult me. But still no answers......

How is that an insult?

What am I supposed to answer?

Shefwedfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is at least the 3rd post you borderline insult me. But still no answers......

I posted this pages ago

As I posted above, concentrate on the cars that can be swapped. Not making up ridiculous requirements which for 99.9% of the drivers in Ireland they will never need

maybe you seem to think this is an insult, I don’t know.....since that post your “requirements” have got more extravagant......that’s nothing to do with me

Next you will be living in the middle of Sahara :-) p.s that was a joke

creedp

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Honest question, in the last 10 years when have you had an unexpected long trip to do? I’m not disagreeing with you just wondering?

Personally I never had, maybe with 24 hours notice I had to move stuff around

I'll give you one - getting a phone call to say father has got a stroke and was in intensive care 350kms away. However when I'm saying unexpected its not just emergency cases but also journeys that aren't the std commute. For eg I have on a number of occasions headed directly from work to my home place 300kms away. Tried it a couple of times in the L30 and got home just after midnight compared to 10pm in the ICE. I have also on a number of occasions headed home for a funeral and returned the same day because of work. Often come home and have to head off straight away to pick up kids from training/games without sufficient time to recharge.

pwurple

HBC08 wrote: »

Thats great for you.
My job isnt driving all day,I work 5k from my home,my missus about 20k.
There is no charge points at either of our work places.We live in a town house without official designated parking.
We like to regularly go away for weekends and would often rack up 500km or more on a trip.
We cant afford 40k on a new car or 2 new cars.
We both drive ICE cars and will continue to do so like the majority of the country for medium to long term.
I doubt Im the only person in this situation.

5k from home? Do you need a bicycle rather than a car? Heck you could jog that in 30mins.

You don't need a charge point either, you just need an ordinary socket at work. You can also ask for a charger. 5 years ago I did that at my last workplace and they installed it on my request.


And if your townhouse is in a complex with a management company, a pedestal charger can be requested and installed.

A secondhand EV is 10k, not 40k.

Your decision to drive 500km without a stop in any town for lunch or a teabreak to give some local businesses some custom is stopping you getting an EV alright. That's your choice to make. I chose differently. I live in Cork though, so West Cork is nice and near for me. I know the dubs can't resist it either!

pwurple

Dravokivich wrote: »

Charges on what? You cant expect a plug to be available to you everywhere you go, can you?

I don't expect it, but for the most part it's there. Very few buildings don't have an outdoor socket. Every hotel with a carpark has one. Golf courses, sports halls, office blocks.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

Yeah, it's about the same straight line performance as my Civic. In the UK it's £9,000 more than the current FK8 Civic Type R and a lot, lot slower. The price difference would let you buy enough petrol to drive the Civic about 90,000 km before breaking even on price. You'd never break even on fun.

kceire wrote: »

What’s the price difference here, in Ireland?

Ha, ha - in the Uk the civic costs €35,890, here it's €51,750, so The Irish government has of course managed to pretty much flip the difference the other way.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

I don't expect it, but for the most part it's there. Very few buildings don't have an outdoor socket. Every hotel with a carpark has one. Golf courses, sports halls, office blocks.

There's always the option of an extension lead out the window for the remainder.

There's about 1500 cars on one of the sites I work at. Quite difficult to facilitate charging for even 20% of that.

Seweryn

Augeo wrote: »

There's about 1500 cars on one of the sites I work at. Quite difficult to facilitate charging for even 20% of that.

It would be quite difficult to replace 20 % of all cars with EV with the resources available, never mind charging them at the same time.

cnocbui

Augeo wrote: »

There's about 1500 cars on one of the sites I work at. Quite difficult to facilitate charging for even 20% of that.

If all those were EVs, would the company be willing to pay to install 1,500 charging points - surely they would be up for more than €1 million in costs - and then pay €250K a year for the electricity to top each of them up by 5kw a day?

Seweryn

Seweryn wrote: »

It would be quite difficult to replace 20 % of all cars with EV with the resources available, never mind charging them at the same time.

Indeed..... The EV fanboys (and girls) don't seem to recognise that reality / practicality.

Shefwedfan

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed..... The EV fanboys (and girls) don't seem to recognise that reality / practicality.

I think we can stop the EV fanboys childish comments

Why would it not be practice?

Shefwedfan

cnocbui wrote: »

If all those were EVs, would the company be willing to pay to install 1,500 charging points - surely they would be up for more than €1 million in costs - and then pay €250K a year for the electricity to top each of them up by 5kw a day?

Why would you need 1500 charge points?

easypazz

cnocbui wrote: »

If all those were EVs, would the company be willing to pay to install 1,500 charging points - surely they would be up for more than €1 million in costs - and then pay €250K a year for the electricity to top each of them up by 5kw a day?

Why would the company pay for the electricity, charge the user for it, at a reasonable premium, and most would charge up at home.

easypazz

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why would you need 1500 charge points?

You might not need 1500 but we are going to need a whole lot of charge points that are always available and always work.

Dravokivich

pwurple wrote: »

I don't expect it, but for the most part it's there. Very few buildings don't have an outdoor socket. Every hotel with a carpark has one. Golf courses, sports halls, office blocks.

You talk about destination charging, but dont expect a charge point at the destination? Tickle me confused.

pwurple

Augeo wrote: »

There's about 1500 cars on one of the sites I work at. Quite difficult to facilitate charging for even 20% of that.

No need. If every car was EV (at least a decade away from that), a charge once a week is plenty for most. A charge only takes a half day... 5% would give loads of coverage.

My site has 900 parking spaces and 26 charge points. There are ~60 people on site with EV or PHEV. I have never seen even half of the spaces occupied.

pwurple

Dravokivich wrote: »

You talk about destination charging, but dont expect a charge point at the destination? Tickle me confused.

Lols.

Not every trip needs a charge. If it's there, bonus.

elperello

pwurple wrote: »

I don't expect it, but for the most part it's there. Very few buildings don't have an outdoor socket. Every hotel with a carpark has one. Golf courses, sports halls, office blocks.

Would there be an issue running cables from outside sockets in areas accessible to the public?

elperello

elperello wrote: »

Would there be an issue running cables from outside sockets in areas accessible to the public?

If done without the owners permission, it would be seen as theft of electricity. People have been "charged" with stealing electricity in the past for plugging in phone chargers.

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

If done without the owners permission, it would be seen as theft of electricity. People have been "charged" with stealing electricity in the past for plugging in phone chargers.

I was thinking more of the danger of injury to members of the public. I know from experience that hotels,halls etc tend to be nervous of people running cables for gigs, conferences etc.

Shefwedfan

easypazz wrote: »

You might not need 1500 but we are going to need a whole lot of charge points that are always available and always work.

But why? are we saying that 1500 people that work in a company wont have access to a home charger? or wont be able to pay for public charging?



Depending on the percentage of electric cars you could have a number of slow chargers and then have reasonabe rate against them. This would be to cater for the people who don't/cant charge at home

liamog

Wibbs wrote: »

I've a neighbour like this(I think I mentioned the chap here before). He's very well meaning and got into hybrids from way back, but he's upgraded every few years and now is in the latest 2019 Leaf(nice car BTW, much nicer than the hideous looking yoke the previous model was). We've talked about this subject a few times and yes we agree that buying an EV instead of ICE is a step in the right direction, but he can't quite get his head around that buying one every four years is taking a few steps backwards. "But they're getting better and more efficient" etc, but when I point out the tonnage of CO2 pumped out producing a new car, any new car, is far more than keeping any car around four a decade or more he just can't see it. He'd not be alone by any means.

That's a bit of a strawman argument, the car that is replaced every four years, goes back into the market as a second-hand car, and is then picked up by someone else. I'm going to assume that your neighbour isn't crushing his four-year-old car when he buys a new one.

There is no practical resource difference between a car having 4 owners in 16 years, and 1 owner for 16 years. The only real difference is who pays the depreciation. Assuming a 40% depreciation over 4 years on a car with a purchase price of €35,000, the first owner would pay an extra €1,596 per year on depreciation and always drives a car less than four years old. Owner number 4 saves €1,148 per year, and always drives a car between 12 and 16 years old.

cnocbui

liamog wrote: »

That's a bit of a strawman argument, the car that is replaced every four years, goes back into the market as a second-hand car, and is then picked up by someone else. I'm going to assume that your neighbour isn't crushing his four-year-old car when he buys a new one.

There is no practical resource difference between a car having 4 owners in 16 years, and 1 owner for 16 years. The only real difference is who pays the depreciation. Assuming a 40% depreciation over 4 years on a car with a purchase price of €35,000, the first owner would pay an extra €1,596 per year on depreciation and always drives a car less than four years old. Owner number 4 saves €1,148 per year, and always drives a car between 12 and 16 years old.

There is a profound resource difference between one person owning one car for 16 years and another person who owns 8 in the same period. It doesn't matter if they are 8 used cars, that person creates a demand pull that allows the original purchasers of those 8 cars a market into which they can offload their used cars to help them finance new purchases. In other words, if the used car market is weak, the demand in the new car market will also be weak, finances being finite.

Mike9832

liamog wrote: »

That's a bit of a strawman argument, the car that is replaced every four years, goes back into the market as a second-hand car, and is then picked up by someone else. I'm going to assume that your neighbour isn't crushing his four-year-old car when he buys a new one.

There is no practical resource difference between a car having 4 owners in 16 years, and 1 owner for 16 years. The only real difference is who pays the depreciation. Assuming a 40% depreciation over 4 years on a car with a purchase price of €35,000, the first owner would pay an extra €1,596 per year on depreciation and always drives a car less than four years old. Owner number 4 saves €1,148 per year, and always drives a car between 12 and 16 years old.

Throwaway car comment is very fair

Loads of 15-20 year old cars on the roads today in great condition , bloody insurance companies had to introduce rules to get rid of them

No one is going to be driving a 24kWh Leaf in 2035

It would be lucky to have range to cross a county, you'd walk further and if inverter, electric motor etc fails they'll be in the scrap yard, won't be fixed like an ICE imo

See it today with crashed ones, straight to scrap yard, yokes like Tesla are a fire hazard and won't be easily insured in the future afters crashes when market matures, they'll be seen as death trap with that crap NCA chemistry

Wibbs

liamog wrote: »

There is no practical resource difference between a car having 4 owners in 16 years, and 1 owner for 16 years. The only real difference is who pays the depreciation. Assuming a 40% depreciation over 4 years on a car with a purchase price of €35,000, the first owner would pay an extra €1,596 per year on depreciation and always drives a car less than four years old. Owner number 4 saves €1,148 per year, and always drives a car between 12 and 16 years old.

As Cnocbui points out there is a large difference between the two. It's more than idiotic a statement to say otherwise. For all your calculations of depreciation you're missing the wood for the trees. Not a shock mind you as this is the consumerist mindset to a tee. And EV faithful tend to also be time and motion types, nerding out on the numbers, no cop for the overall cost.

For a start that one owner for sixteen years person has not bought three new cars. The carbon footprint of the manufacture of a new car is deep and wide. So deep and wide, researchers have to agree on a general cut off point where they have to stop counting or they'd be driven to distraction. But as per that linked article let's take a figure of 17 tonnes of CO2(just CO2 BTW, not the myriad other factors) for a medium sized family ICE car*. Those three cars not bought amount to at least 50 tonnes of CO2 not used, which equates as per that article for the amount of CO2 burnt by the average home in the UK's gas and electricity for nine years. How long would you need to drive a Leaf to offset that? Never mind the average owner will have gone through two such cars in that nine years.


*EV's have slightly higher carbon costs(about 1 to 2 tonnes IIRC?), but don't produce nearly as much in actual driving and batteries may be useful at end of life. Time will tell. And they should last way longer overall, but if we stick to the current consumer model they almost certainly won't. I will lay bets now that if I look after my late 90's car and pass it onto someone who will in turn look after it, chances are very high that it will still be driving around in 50 years time, whereas a Tesla almost certainly won't. Hell I near guarantee there will be Ford Model T's knocking around in a century whereas there won't be any Leafs. Far too many points of failure in the latter.

The plain fact is cars are designed to be disposable items with a built in obsolescence to keep the industry going. Contrast them with other vehicles like plant machinery and the like which can have replacement intervals measured in decades. Hell, civil and military aircraft can have replacement intervals measured in decades. There are 1940's era DC3's still in service today. We can make and keep a 737 in the air day after day for twenty years or more, updating when required, yet your average car is usually into a scrappage scheme in under 15 years, often less. The waste in that industry is truly appalling and for all the manufacturers bullsh1t about sustainability and recycling and new "green tech" their very business model makes a farce of it and too many of us are happy to buy into their bullsh1t.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

...

My site has 900 parking spaces and 26 charge points. There are ~60 people on site with EV or PHEV. I have never seen even half of the spaces occupied.

If there was only 12 charge points and the 60 were in BEVs then maybe ye wouldnt have enough.

You went on about destination charging BTW. Phev don't need to charge BEV do.

liamog

Wibbs wrote: »

As Cnocbui points out there is a large difference between the two. It's more than idiotic a statement to say otherwise. For all your calculations of depreciation you're missing the wood for the trees. Not a shock mind you as this is the consumerist mindset to a tee. And EV faithful tend to also be time and motion types, nerding out on the numbers, no cop for the overall cost.

For a start that one owner for sixteen years person has not bought three new cars. The carbon footprint of the manufacture of a new car is deep and wide. So deep and wide, researchers have to agree on a general cut off point where they have to stop counting or they'd be driven to distraction. But as per that linked article let's take a figure of 17 tonnes of CO2(just CO2 BTW, not the myriad other factors) for a medium sized family ICE car*. Those three cars not bought amount to at least 50 tonnes of CO2 not used, which equates as per that article for the amount of CO2 burnt by the average home in the UK's gas and electricity for nine years. How long would you need to drive a Leaf to offset that? Never mind the average owner will have gone through two such cars in that nine years.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, can you clarify.
If a car is bought new and kept for 16 years, your correct that the owner has not bought 3 other brand new cars. However, the three other drivers who would have purchased the car in years 4, 8, and 12 now need to buy a brand new car as we're now apparently banning used car sales.
Resource-wise we still have 4 cars worth of production.

Just as with the cost, the manufacturing resource usage doesn't change in total, it is just allocated differently across the owners. There are some who seem to believe it takes X amount of resources to produce a car and only the first owner is responsible for this, in reality, every second-hand car was also manufactured at some point. It's purely an accounting trick to allocate all the resource usage to owner 1 whether he owned it for 2 years or 16.

BloodBath

cnocbui wrote: »

If you look at the history of life on this planet, the current average global temperature is comparatively arctic and the CO2 levels aren't even a third of the long term average. Not only that, but apart from deep ocean vents, all life on Earth ultimately depends on photosynthesis. With a global average temperature of only around 14.5° C, it's only about half the optimum temperature for photosynthesis. If the planet gets warmer with higher levels of CO2, life on Earth will thrive, as it has in the past under those conditions, not become extinct!

The extinction movement adherents are just really, really f'n thick .

A rise in temps to melt the big ice sheets will flood most coastal regions of the world where 90% of the human population is. Our life certainly won't thrive.

Go back 13 thousand years where the last big melt and flood occurred. It nearly wiped us off the planet and its where all the tales/legends of a great flood occurred.

It's not just about CO2 either.

Seweryn wrote: »

Electric vehicles or wind turbines are not going to move us to a "lower carbon" (read - lower CO2 emission) society. These are fossil fuel dependent industries (which one isn't really?), driven by subsidies and are based on very high energy and resources consumption per head regardless of whatever you hear in the media. You said we need to move towards lower energy use per capita, and yes, that should be our goal. But we are not going to achieve that by making more and more stuff and by moving our 70 kg bodies in 2 ton of steel vehicles everywhere we go. Lower CO2 emissions means lower consumption of energy and resources.
EVs are not going to lower emissions overall or solve congestion problems. They only move the problem sideways. It's like cleaning your own household and then throwing your rubbish into the neighbour's garden.

You have a point about weight and size of vehicles. People don't need to be driving 2 ton monsters but it will reduce emissions. Even the worst power plants are far more efficient than having millions of combustion vehicles on the roads. The likes of wind and nuclear are far far cleaner overall as well as removing the pollution from populated areas. The majority of science around these numbers is massively flawed as it doesn't take into account all factors. You'e in lala land though if you think EV's won't reduce overall emissions.

jmreire

liamog wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, can you clarify.
If a car is bought new and kept for 16 years, your correct that the owner has not bought 3 other brand new cars. However, the three other drivers who would have purchased the car in years 4, 8, and 12 now need to buy a brand new car as we're now apparently banning used car sales.
Resource-wise we still have 4 cars worth of production.

Just as with the cost, the manufacturing resource usage doesn't change in total, it is just allocated differently across the owners. There are some who seem to believe it takes X amount of resources to produce a car and only the first owner is responsible for this, in reality, every second-hand car was also manufactured at some point. It's purely an accounting trick to allocate all the resource usage to owner 1 whether he owned it for 2 years or 16.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from, BUT ( there is always a BUT ) If you were to take the average lifespan ( nr of years in service ) of the national vehicle fleet, and double it ( and make no mistake about it, it's more than possible ) Then what effect would that have on our vehicle carbon foot print? Presently we are being shoe horned into frequent changes of vehicle, with cars been scrapped prematurely, and still having lots of life in them.

Wibbs

liamog wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, can you clarify.
If a car is bought new and kept for 16 years, your correct that the owner has not bought 3 other brand new cars. However, the three other drivers who would have purchased the car in years 4, 8, and 12 now need to buy a brand new car as we're now apparently banning used car sales.
Resource-wise we still have 4 cars worth of production.

Just as with the cost, the manufacturing resource usage doesn't change in total, it is just allocated differently across the owners. There are some who seem to believe it takes X amount of resources to produce a car and only the first owner is responsible for this, in reality, every second-hand car was also manufactured at some point. It's purely an accounting trick to allocate all the resource usage to owner 1 whether he owned it for 2 years or 16.

You must be an accountant alright, or of a similar mindset. 1) nobody said anything about banning used car sales, so I dunno where you're pulling that from to make the numbers balance. 2) I dunno how I can make this any more clear, as it seems it's pretty damned obvious to most anyone else. IE the more people hang onto a car for longer, the fewer cars will be required and built and scrapped and less of an environmental impact. You don't seem to see this because you're completely wedded to the new car, sold at four years to second owner, then third, then scrapped manufacturing and sales model. As most of us are, because that's what suits the current economic model.

OK let's simplify this: Imagine a model where people expected to hold onto a new car for fifteen years, but the car was expected to last/be upgradeable/repairable for thirty, so the second owner could drive it for say a further ten, the third a further five, or whatever. Fewer cars built and required. Would you agree that this would be significantly "greener" than the current model? Regardless of motive power too BTW. There would be tens of tonnes of CO2 not used. That's the equivalent of a lot of petrol/diesel.

Now I do beg your and everyone else's indulgence here as I have dyscalculia(completely thick at maths), but my old yoke has done 160,000 kms. The same old yoke pumps out 200grams per Km, so by my calculations(ha! I actually have a headache now ) I come up with around 30 tonnes(?) produced from the exhaust of CO2 over 21 years. That's under two new average cars CO2 worth at point of sale and less than something like just one single new Range Rover(and about one and a half Tesla Model S') before they even turn a wheel on the road. Never mind the two or three cars I didn't buy worth of CO2.

So yes L I am "greener" than my hybrid/EV driving neighbour who has followed the standard buying/"updating" curve and certainly "greener" than the guy who buys an oil burner every four years or so.


And handily my yoke is now worth more than I paid for it and is year on year an appreciating asset. Few can say that about a car. In fairness that was more luck than judgement on my part.

Idbatterim

Insurance companies discriminating on car age should be illegal! Get rid of the year from the reg too. We have no motor industry here. Just a fortune flowing out to the Germans and Japanese etc!

Wibbs

jmreire wrote: »

Presently we are being shoe horned into frequent changes of vehicle, with cars been scrapped prematurely, and still having lots of life in them.

It wasn't always thus, at least for a short period of time when the car came out and became affordable. One of Ford's early adverts for the Model T, was "The only car you'll ever need" and they built them to last*. The steel they used was but one example. Instead of the usual type they used vanadium steel, which is stronger, lighter and takes forever to corrode. As Jay Leno remarked on finding panels for his ones, you can dig a panel out of a country ditch, wipe it down with a bit of sandpaper, paint it and off you go. They could make car bodies from similar today and yes corrosion protection has gotten much better compared to the days when a Lancia would dissolve like a sugar lump in the rain, but it's mostly BS too, as the so called corrosion protection and warranty is usually for 5-6 years and that's nearly always corrosion that shows through as a hole in a panel or frame structure and when that happens the car's fcuked.




*Crazily enough it's estimated that about half a million are still out there. :eek:

Seweryn

BloodBath wrote: »

You have a point about weight and size of vehicles. People don't need to be driving 2 ton monsters but it will reduce emissions...

My point here was about moving massive weights and therefore using huge amount of energy when the result is a person being transported from place to place. This has little to do as to what type of energy we use (more efficient electric motor or IC engine). The thing is we use way, way too much energy.

BloodBath wrote: »

The likes of wind and nuclear are far far cleaner overall as well as removing the pollution from populated areas. The majority of science around these numbers is massively flawed as it doesn't take into account all factors. You'e in lala land though if you think EV's won't reduce overall emissions.

EVs obviously reduce emissions where they are being used. They are not going to reduce emissions overall (not significantly anyway). They do not grow on trees and need to be manufactured. The car shell is one thing, but making the battery pack for an EV is something of a different scale in terms of emissions. Making a battery for a single EV has equivalent impact on the environment to driving an ICE car for a good few years. This is just the battery, which is going to last forever, sorry, the lifetime of the EV..

cnocbui

Idbatterim wrote: »

Insurance companies discriminating on car age should be illegal! Get rid of the year from the reg too. We have no motor industry here. Just a fortune flowing out to the Germans and Japanese etc!

Absolutely, The insurance companies should not set themselves above the NCT - an expensive process we pay for. Typical of the Irish government to regulate things it shouldn't and not regulate things it should.

jmreire

Wibbs wrote: »

You must be an accountant alright, or of a similar mindset. 1) nobody said anything about banning used car sales, so I dunno where you're pulling that from to make the numbers balance. 2) I dunno how I can make this any more clear, as it seems it's pretty damned obvious to most anyone else. IE the more people hang onto a car for longer, the fewer cars will be required and built and scrapped and less of an environmental impact. You don't seem to see this because you're completely wedded to the new car, sold at four years to second owner, then third, then scrapped manufacturing and sales model. As most of us are, because that's what suits the current economic model.

OK let's simplify this: Imagine a model where people expected to hold onto a new car for fifteen years, but the car was expected to last/be upgradeable/repairable for thirty, so the second owner could drive it for say a further ten, the third a further five, or whatever. Fewer cars built and required. Would you agree that this would be significantly "greener" than the current model? Regardless of motive power too BTW. There would be tens of tonnes of CO2 not used. That's the equivalent of a lot of petrol/diesel.

Now I do beg your and everyone else's indulgence here as I have dyscalculia(completely thick at maths), but my old yoke has done 160,000 kms. The same old yoke pumps out 200grams per Km, so by my calculations(ha! I actually have a headache now ) I come up with around 30 tonnes(?) produced from the exhaust of CO2 over 21 years. That's under two new average cars CO2 worth at point of sale and less than something like just one single new Range Rover(and about one and a half Tesla Model S') before they even turn a wheel on the road. Never mind the two or three cars I didn't buy worth of CO2.

So yes L I am "greener" than my hybrid/EV driving neighbour who has followed the standard buying/"updating" curve and certainly "greener" than the guy who buys an oil burner every four years or so.


And handily my yoke is now worth more than I paid for it and is year on year an appreciating asset. Few can say that about a car. In fairness that was more luck than judgement on my part.

The only fly in that ointment, as far as I can see is getting our financial institutions to agree. They need a population locked into the "buying / discarding" cycle, keep the profit's flowing ( with the Govt taking their cut too , of course ) And that's why we are where we are....but there are plenty of Country's out there where the age of the car is immaterial...once it's roadworthy, that's it, drive on. Too many vested interest's manipulating the car industry here in Ireland for their own benefit, and for them the carbon issue is a godsend.

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

Insurance companies discriminating on car age should be illegal! Get rid of the year from the reg too. We have no motor industry here. Just a fortune flowing out to the Germans and Japanese etc!

Via the Car salesmen who have a vested interest in ensuring as many "keep up with the Joneses" upgrades as possible.


PS you can soon add Chinese to that list.

liamog

Wibbs wrote: »

You must be an accountant alright, or of a similar mindset. 1) nobody said anything about banning used car sales, so I dunno where you're pulling that from to make the numbers balance. 2) I dunno how I can make this any more clear, as it seems it's pretty damned obvious to most anyone else. IE the more people hang onto a car for longer, the fewer cars will be required and built and scrapped and less of an environmental impact. You don't seem to see this because you're completely wedded to the new car, sold at four years to second owner, then third, then scrapped manufacturing and sales model. As most of us are, because that's what suits the current economic model.

I have no particular love of the current average vehicle lifespan, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of claiming one car one owner for 15 years is greener than one car many owners over the same period.

All that matters is the total usable life of the vehicle is extended. To keep it simple let's say Ireland needs 2,000,000 cars. A 15-year lifecycle needs 133,000 replacement cars a year. 30 years need 66,000 replacements per year so of course, it's better to keep all cars on the road for longer. The lifecycle is important here, not the number of owners.

Arguably given that Electric Motors and Inverters are old technology and easy to maintain, switching to EVs should have a positive effect on the longevity of vehicles. The battery is the only thing that degrades and can be replaced, re-used and recycles. Current automotive batteries are expected to have a long lifecycle (10 years in cars, years as secondary storage) before being recycled.