All ICE imports to be banned from 2030 - incl used...

liamog

Casati wrote: »

Irrelevant comparison for anybody this side of the Atlantic as most XC40’s sold here are 1.5 petrol or 2.0 diesel with approx 50% of the 218 g/km used i that example

I could do the same comparison for a Mini Cooper S and a Mini Cooper SE, but don't have a decent figure for the manufacturing so would have to use the 25% estimate that other studies have found.

Another advantage comparing the Mini's is the SE is cheaper than the S

cnocbui

cgcsb wrote: »

Solved

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/05/01/spains-solar-salt-opens-door-to-24-7-clean-electricity/#:~:text=The%20Gemasolar%20plant%20near%20the,additional%20power%20from%20the%20Sun.&text=These%20train%20the%20Sun's%20rays,the%20boiling%20point%20of%20water.

That looks really good.

A wave of new CSP tower with storage projects in the coming years is set to lower the cost of finance and improve competitiveness compared with other generation types.

High capital expenditure (capex) cost of CSP plants and limited installed capacity means financing costs remain far higher than for PV and wind plants.

https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/csp-today/noor-iii-csp-tower-seen-tipping-point-financing-costs

And in Australia, where another such project was promised to deliver elctricity at a minuscule US 6 cents per KWh:

Port Augusta solar thermal power plant scrapped after failing to secure finance
Posted FriFriday 5 AprApril 2019

Great idea, pitty about the cost and the millions of cubic metres of water you need and the trucks that have to constantly drive around pressure washing and cleaning the mirrors. That bit bit sounds really practical.

The other thing those plants are great for is roast chicken - well not chicken - frying 6,000 native birds a year.

We are doing this for the envirnoment, right? So what if a few thousand birds get vaporized in mid air, or lie on the ground slowly dying from burns. Charging those EVs at night and being able to virtue signal by day, makes their painful deaths worth it.

Lewis_Benson

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

All of them

Really?, all of them?
Are the affordable ones actually capable of towing a trailer?

cnocbui

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

All of them

You have a funny definition of all:

Make and model Tow capacity
Audi e-Tron 1800kg
BMW i3 electric Not rated to tow
Hyundai Ioniq Electric Not rated to tow
Hyundai Kona Electric Not rated to tow
Jaguar I-Pace 750kg
Mercedes-Benz EQC Not rated to tow*
MG ZS EV Not rated to tow
Mini Electric Not rated to tow
Nissan Leaf Not rated to tow
Tesla Model 3 1000kg
Tesla Model S Not rated to tow
Tesla Model X 2250kg
Renault Zoe Not rated to tow https://evcentral.com.au/complete-guide-to-towing-with-a-hybrid-phev-or-ev/

liamog

So you've given a list with 5 cars that are rated to tow (the asterix on the EQC is due to it having a tow rating everywhere except Australia).

Then the rest of the cars are small family cars, people don't generally buy Clio's for their towing ability, so I'm not sure why you expect the Zoe to do so.
Whether a car can tow is down to the manufacturer paying for certification with a tow bar, if you going to sell a limited number of cars compared to the petrol version, the number that require a tow rating is going to be so small that you just don't bother.

The only oddity is the Model S but that's a business decision by Tesla to encourage you to buy an X

Banana Republic 1

cnocbui wrote: »

That looks really good.

https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/csp-today/noor-iii-csp-tower-seen-tipping-point-financing-costs

And in Australia, where another such project was promised to deliver elctricity at a minuscule US 6 cents per KWh:



Great idea, pitty about the cost and the millions of cubic metres of water you need and the trucks that have to constantly drive around pressure washing and cleaning the mirrors. That bit bit sounds really practical.

The other thing those plants are great for is roast chicken - well not chicken - frying 6,000 native birds a year.

We are doing this for the envirnoment, right? So what if a few thousand birds get vaporized in mid air, or lie on the ground slowly dying from burns. Charging those EVs at night and being able to virtue signal by day, makes their painful deaths worth it.

As opposed to drowning in oil slick, use your brain instead of just spouting Luddite propaganda.

Lewis_Benson

cnocbui wrote: »

You have a funny definition of all:

Make and model Tow capacity
Audi e-Tron 1800kg
BMW i3 electric Not rated to tow
Hyundai Ioniq Electric Not rated to tow
Hyundai Kona Electric Not rated to tow
Jaguar I-Pace 750kg
Mercedes-Benz EQC Not rated to tow*
MG ZS EV Not rated to tow
Mini Electric Not rated to tow
Nissan Leaf Not rated to tow
Tesla Model 3 1000kg
Tesla Model S Not rated to tow
Tesla Model X 2250kg
Renault Zoe Not rated to tow https://evcentral.com.au/complete-guide-to-towing-with-a-hybrid-phev-or-ev/

Exactly.
Hardly affordable to the average joe.

tom1ie

Evs probably are better for the environment vs ICE(although me scrapping and recycling my ICE and then buying a new EV that took material and energy to construct, as opposed to just running my ICE........) but if you have no debt on your current ICE and you don’t need a new car, why would you put yourself in debt to get an ev?
Just doesn’t make financial sense whatever about the environmental arguments.

Isambard

cnocbui wrote: »

That looks really good.

https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/csp-today/noor-iii-csp-tower-seen-tipping-point-financing-costs

And in Australia, where another such project was promised to deliver elctricity at a minuscule US 6 cents per KWh:



Great idea, pitty about the cost and the millions of cubic metres of water you need and the trucks that have to constantly drive around pressure washing and cleaning the mirrors. That bit bit sounds really practical.

The other thing those plants are great for is roast chicken - well not chicken - frying 6,000 native birds a year.

We are doing this for the envirnoment, right? So what if a few thousand birds get vaporized in mid air, or lie on the ground slowly dying from burns. Charging those EVs at night and being able to virtue signal by day, makes their painful deaths worth it.

Did no one think of installing solar panels on a car roof? Maybe I'm being a bit thick....

LillySV

Isambard wrote: »

Did no one think of installing solar panels on a car roof? Maybe I'm being a bit thick....

I created something like that for my leaving cert project years ago...had a little ugly square model car with a little solar panel on top....was a pile of ****e

cnocbui

Isambard wrote: »

Did no one think of installing solar panels on a car roof? Maybe I'm being a bit thick....

Yes, it's been done, but basically there isn't enough area on a car tp put panels that produce enough electricity to power it unless you can make the whole car weigh so little two children could lift it off the ground. Like trying to heat a room with a candle.

Isambard

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes, it's been done, but basically there isn't enough area on a car to put panels that produce enough electricity to power it unless you can make the whole car weigh so little two children could lift it off the ground. Like trying to heat a room with a candle.

I was thinking more of assisting to charge the battery, rathe than powering the car, which would be a little ambitious, perpetual motion might be easier..... I have a solar charger which has succeeded in keeping a car battery (that's a little weak) alive all winter. It's about 8"by 4"

cgcsb

cnocbui wrote: »

The other thing those plants are great for is roast chicken - well not chicken - frying 6,000 native birds a year.

Where does this number come from? Is it the same as the thousands of birds killed by wind turbines? 5 bird deaths were reported to IWEA in a decade. The fossil fuel industry does not collect data on the the fauna it kills, for obvious reasons.

cnocbui

cgcsb wrote: »

Where does this number come from? Is it the same as the thousands of birds killed by wind turbines? 5 bird deaths were reported to IWEA in a decade. The fossil fuel industry does not collect data on the the fauna it kills, for obvious reasons.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-deaths-20160831-snap-story.html

The sight of a bird being fried to death is so common at the Ivanpah Solar Plant in California's Mojave Desert, that workers have nicknamed the smouldering birds "streamers", because they leave tiny wisps of white smoke behind as they burn up in the sky.

You might never have seen an Yuma clapper rail. Fewer than 1,000 are thought to still be sloshing about in cattail-thick marshes from Mexico up to Utah and across to California. But if you were lucky enough to spot one, you might chuckle at its oversized toes.

When officials with the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory saw one of these endangered birds last year, it was no laughing matter. It was dead. It was one of 233 birds recovered from the sites of three Californian desert solar power plants as part of a federal investigation. The laboratory’s wildlife equivalents of CSI stars concluded that many of the birds had been fatally singed, broken, or otherwise fatally crippled by the facilities.

Last week, that long-dead clapper rail stoked a legal action that challenges at least a half dozen additional solar plants planned in California and Arizona.

Conservationists say they’re also worried about yellow-billed cuckoos, which might be added to the federal government’s list of threatened species, and endangered southwestern willow flycatchers, though none of those birds have been found dead at any of the solar sites.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-farms-threaten-birds/

Isambard

cgcsb wrote: »

Where does this number come from? Is it the same as the thousands of birds killed by wind turbines? 5 bird deaths were reported to IWEA in a decade. The fossil fuel industry does not collect data on the the fauna it kills, for obvious reasons.

what about the very large numbers hit by cars?

RandomViewer

Do the type of people who used to join the clergy now join the Irish Green party, same pompous hypocritical spiel and always the hand out looking for money,
Is the EV the church roof of the 2020s?

tom1ie

RandomViewer wrote: »

Do the type of people who used to join the clergy now join the Irish Green party, same pompous hypocritical spiel and always the hand out looking for money,
Is the EV the church roof of the 2020s?

Tbh it’s a good idea to make people who are going to buy a new car, buy an EV. it cuts down on emissions.
However you can’t make people who don’t want to buy a new car (and hence take on a large debt) buy a new EV.
The big question is will there be a used EV market (with useful range left on the battery) by 2030, that doesn’t involve taking out a loan to purchase? Very doubtful.

RandomViewer

tom1ie wrote: »

Tbh it’s a good idea to make people who are going to buy a new car, buy an EV. it cuts down on emissions.
However you can’t make people who don’t want to buy a new car (and hence take on a large debt) buy a new EV.
The big question is will there be a used EV market (with useful range left on the battery) by 2030, that doesn’t involve taking out a loan to purchase? Very doubtful.

I'm thinking there's a bunch of Betamax videos/brick phones on wheels being sold at the moment. Where an ICE car is good for 12-15 years I'd be thinking that an EV out of warranty is about as saleable as secondhand underwear

Leonard Hofstadter

tom1ie wrote: »

Tbh it’s a good idea to make people who are going to buy a new car, buy an EV. it cuts down on emissions.
However you can’t make people who don’t want to buy a new car (and hence take on a large debt) buy a new EV.
The big question is will there be a used EV market (with useful range left on the battery) by 2030, that doesn’t involve taking out a loan to purchase? Very doubtful.

The other question is what happens if synthetic fuels become a reality?

Then all the existing ICE fleet is as green (when CO2 is measured on a well to wheel basis - which of course EVs are not measured on) as a brand new EV but still has the superior range, character, cost and convenience characteristics of an ICE car. Plus there is no 7-10 extra tonnes of CO2 per car compared to the ICE equivalent in the manufacturing process. If we care about the environment, then we should want the manufacturing of cars to emit less carbon rather than engaging in middle class virtue signalling and wanting to be seen to be 'on trend'. Apparently synthetic fuels are much better for NOx, PM and CO, too because there's only 8 components in the fuel compared to the 40 used in petrol - so we could ditch things like petrol particulate filters and such likes, which would mean even more power - and the engines could sound more like they used to (i.e. better and louder).

That would mean you've zero environmental benefits compared to fossil fuel powered cars (after all the whole point of synthetic fuels is that all the existing car fleet will be able to use them, and we might get more power to boot) but all the cost, range, weight, handling and convenience drawbacks of EVs not to mention the obvious loss of character and soul when there's no combustion engine under the bonnet.

Maybe synthetic fuels will go nowhere, maybe not. Obviously as a petrolhead I want to see ICE powered cars survive for many, many more years to come and if it means we can make the existing fleet greener without any of us doing anything (the Government of course would need to step up to the plate and ensure that the fuel duties are way less to ensure we use this instead of traditional petrol or diesel to fuel our ICE cars) then it's got to be worth trying as a bare minimum. Hydrogen also is a topic of conversation because green hydrogen has zero emissions, too but all the convenience and range of petrol or diesel which is why I think it's a better technology. People laughed at EVs a few years ago and they don't now.

Elon Musk famously calls fuel cells 'fool cells' but considering he wouldn't know what build quality is if it was staring him in the face, why should we believe him?

I can't help but feel that going for EVs en masse now is repeating the mistake we made in embracing diesels so much a decade ago when there are potentially two viable alternatives coming over the next few years.

Anyway, as I mentioned before, ICE has not been banned by this Government or any Government in the EU, it's contrary to EU laws and indeed the last Climate Action plan the Government published notably did not include such a ban (despite everyone expecting it) for the same reason.

liamog

tom1ie wrote: »

The big question is will there be a used EV market (with useful range left on the battery) by 2030, that doesn’t involve taking out a loan to purchase? Very doubtful.

It's all a bit mad really, a couple of years ago people were told to avoid buying an EV beacuse they would depreciate to quickly, now the biggest complaint is that second hand cars cost too much.

Lithium Ion batteries have a design life of around 1,000 cycles, a cycle being a charge from 0% to 100%. End of life is around 70% of the original capacity.
To put that in automotive terms, an ID.3 bought today with its 62kWh battery should have a usable capacity of 43.4kWh after its been fully discharged and charged 1,000 times. That works out as roughly 52,700 kWh which based on the ID.3 efficency rating means about 320,000km.

So in short an ID.3 after 320,000km should still have a usable range of 260km instead of the 350km it starts with.

tom1ie

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

The other question is what happens if synthetic fuels become a reality?

Then all the existing ICE fleet is as green (when CO2 is measured on a well to wheel basis - which of course EVs are not measured on) as a brand new EV but still has the superior range, character, cost and convenience characteristics of an ICE car. Plus there is no 7-10 extra tonnes of CO2 per car compared to the ICE equivalent in the manufacturing process. If we care about the environment, then we should want the manufacturing of cars to emit less carbon rather than engaging in middle class virtue signalling and wanting to be seen to be 'on trend'. Apparently synthetic fuels are much better for NOx, PM and CO, too because there's only 8 components in the fuel compared to the 40 used in petrol - so we could ditch things like petrol particulate filters and such likes, which would mean even more power - and the engines could sound more like they used to (i.e. better and louder).

That would mean you've zero environmental benefits compared to fossil fuel powered cars (after all the whole point of synthetic fuels is that all the existing car fleet will be able to use them, and we might get more power to boot) but all the cost, range, weight, handling and convenience drawbacks of EVs not to mention the obvious loss of character and soul when there's no combustion engine under the bonnet.

Maybe synthetic fuels will go nowhere, maybe not. Obviously as a petrolhead I want to see ICE powered cars survive for many, many more years to come and if it means we can make the existing fleet greener without any of us doing anything (the Government of course would need to step up to the plate and ensure that the fuel duties are way less to ensure we use this instead of traditional petrol or diesel to fuel our ICE cars) then it's got to be worth trying as a bare minimum. Hydrogen also is a topic of conversation because green hydrogen has zero emissions, too but all the convenience and range of petrol or diesel which is why I think it's a better technology. People laughed at EVs a few years ago and they don't now.

Elon Musk famously calls fuel cells 'fool cells' but considering he wouldn't know what build quality is if it was staring him in the face, why should we believe him?

I can't help but feel that going for EVs en masse now is repeating the mistake we made in embracing diesels so much a decade ago when there are potentially two viable alternatives coming over the next few years.

Anyway, as I mentioned before, ICE has not been banned by this Government or any Government in the EU, it's contrary to EU laws and indeed the last Climate Action plan the Government published notably did not include such a ban (despite everyone expecting it) for the same reason.

Haven’t looked into synthetic fuels at all tbh. Is it pie in the sky stuff or is it something that could happen?

Banana Republic 1

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

The other question is what happens if synthetic fuels become a reality?

Then all the existing ICE fleet is as green (when CO2 is measured on a well to wheel basis - which of course EVs are not measured on) as a brand new EV but still has the superior range, character, cost and convenience characteristics of an ICE car. Plus there is no 7-10 extra tonnes of CO2 per car compared to the ICE equivalent in the manufacturing process. If we care about the environment, then we should want the manufacturing of cars to emit less carbon rather than engaging in middle class virtue signalling and wanting to be seen to be 'on trend'. Apparently synthetic fuels are much better for NOx, PM and CO, too because there's only 8 components in the fuel compared to the 40 used in petrol - so we could ditch things like petrol particulate filters and such likes, which would mean even more power - and the engines could sound more like they used to (i.e. better and louder).

That would mean you've zero environmental benefits compared to fossil fuel powered cars (after all the whole point of synthetic fuels is that all the existing car fleet will be able to use them, and we might get more power to boot) but all the cost, range, weight, handling and convenience drawbacks of EVs not to mention the obvious loss of character and soul when there's no combustion engine under the bonnet.

Maybe synthetic fuels will go nowhere, maybe not. Obviously as a petrolhead I want to see ICE powered cars survive for many, many more years to come and if it means we can make the existing fleet greener without any of us doing anything (the Government of course would need to step up to the plate and ensure that the fuel duties are way less to ensure we use this instead of traditional petrol or diesel to fuel our ICE cars) then it's got to be worth trying as a bare minimum. Hydrogen also is a topic of conversation because green hydrogen has zero emissions, too but all the convenience and range of petrol or diesel which is why I think it's a better technology. People laughed at EVs a few years ago and they don't now.

Elon Musk famously calls fuel cells 'fool cells' but considering he wouldn't know what build quality is if it was staring him in the face, why should we believe him?

I can't help but feel that going for EVs en masse now is repeating the mistake we made in embracing diesels so much a decade ago when there are potentially two viable alternatives coming over the next few years.

Anyway, as I mentioned before, ICE has not been banned by this Government or any Government in the EU, it's contrary to EU laws and indeed the last Climate Action plan the Government published notably did not include such a ban (despite everyone expecting it) for the same reason.

Your living in the past friend, ICE vehicles are on the way out and no amount of Luddite propaganda will change that.

Vestiapx

All home heating oils should be replaced by renewable bio fuels, the technology to run ice should simply be moved towards bio fuels sharply and leave the lithium for electronic devices.

Is there even going to be enough lithium to power a world of electric cars ?

Leonard Hofstadter

tom1ie wrote: »

Haven’t looked into synthetic fuels at all tbh. Is it pie in the sky stuff or is it something that could happen?

Porsche will begin production of them next year.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/porsche-begin-producing-synthetic-fuels-2022

Mazda, Audi and Bentley are also interested, as are McLaren. Presumably Ferrari and other sports car makers would be interested if they are shown to work as obviously for cars like that, the petrol engine is such an integral part of the driving experience. Synthetic fuels would allow these cars to continue to have the exotic sounds they currently make forever.

When the next generation of F1 powertrain comes on stream in the middle of this decade, it will still be a hybridised combustion engine but they are proposing to switch to synthetic fuels. Porsche are looking to make a return to F1 as a way of showcasing synthetic fuels if this materialises.

Mercedes have ruled out synthetic fuels in favour of EVs, however.

The good news for BMW fans is that they think it's worth exploring and have invested in a company which wants to create net carbon neutral petrol: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1128441_bmw-invests-in-company-aiming-to-produce-zero-net-carbon-gasoline

Don't know about other manufacturers, nobody is really saying although presumably Volvo and Jaguar are not interested given that both plan to transition to electric only in the next few years. I would think companies like Toyota would be interested given that Akio Toyoda is on record as saying that combustion engines should not be abolished prematurely and their association with hybrids of course (not to mention their newfound interest in making drivers' cars, as the likes of the GR Yaris shows).

Also, hydrogen powered ICE is back in the news although I'm sceptical it will ever come to fruition given that BMW tried it without success 20 years ago with the Hydrogen 7. Either way, ICE will be around for many more years to come. Even if the sale of new ICE cars and used ICE imports was banned in the morning (which of course won't be happening), with about 2.18 million cars registered on Irish roads then you're talking about 22 years before they're all gone assuming 100,000 new cars are sold every year for the next 22 years (some years more new cars than that are sold, other years less).

Even if all used imports were full EV and we imported at a rate of say 50,000 a year (and it won't be as high as that with Brexit) then you're still talking about 14.5 years more of ICE cars on the roads in the absolute worst case scenario. Even if that did happen, alternatives to fossil fuels for heavy duty commercial and farming vehicles are years away, and nobody is talking about getting rid of fossil fuels for motorbikes, either. So the absolute worst case scenario is there will be petrol or diesel cars on our roads until at least 2035, and it will be at least 5 - 10 years longer than that in reality.

https://www.h2-view.com/story/avl-develops-hydrogen-internal-engine-for-carbon-neutral-transportation/

cnocbui

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

...

Also, hydrogen powered ICE is back in the news although I'm sceptical it will ever come to fruition given that BMW tried it without success 20 years ago with the Hydrogen 7. Either way, ICE will be around for many more years to come. Even if the sale of new ICE cars and used ICE imports was banned in the morning (which of course won't be happening) with over 2 million cars on the fleet then you're talking about 20 years before they're all gone assuming 100,000 new cars are sold every year (some years more new cars than that are sold, other years less).

https://www.h2-view.com/story/avl-develops-hydrogen-internal-engine-for-carbon-neutral-transportation/

You might want to check out the hydrogen fuel cell Honda Clarity. 580 km range and takes 3-5 minutes to refuel.

cnocbui

Vestiapx wrote: »

All home heating oils should be replaced by renewable bio fuels, the technology to run ice should simply be moved towards bio fuels sharply and leave the lithium for electronic devices.

Is there even going to be enough lithium to power a world of electric cars ?

This is probably the worst idea I have ever seen put forth. Bio-fuels are a big no-no.

Leonard Hofstadter

cnocbui wrote: »

You might want to check out the hydrogen fuel cell Honda Clarity. 580 km range and takes 3-5 minutes to refuel.

That's a completely different concept to the Hydrogen 7 though. The FCX is a fuel cell vehicle (and it is certainly a much more attractive option than battery electric precisely because as you say, it has the convenience of a petrol or diesel). The Hydrogen 7 used the 6.0 V12 from the 760Li but had only half the power and did the equivalent of about 6 mpg when running on hydrogen, in other words it used the equivalent of three times as much hydrogen as an FCX. That's why BMW abandoned it, they are still working on Hydrogen but have followed Honda, Hyundai and Toyota in that they're going down the fuel cell route now.

cnocbui

liamog wrote: »

It's all a bit mad really, a couple of years ago people were told to avoid buying an EV beacuse they would depreciate to quickly, now the biggest complaint is that second hand cars cost too much.

Lithium Ion batteries have a design life of around 1,000 cycles, a cycle being a charge from 0% to 100%. End of life is around 70% of the original capacity.
To put that in automotive terms, an ID.3 bought today with its 62kWh battery should have a usable capacity of 43.4kWh after its been fully discharged and charged 1,000 times. That works out as roughly 52,700 kWh which based on the ID.3 efficency rating means about 320,000km.

So in short an ID.3 after 320,000km should still have a usable range of 260km instead of the 350km it starts with.

Speaking of depreciation, didn't Unkle recently buy a Tesla Model S P85 for £21,000 That had depreciated 68.5%?

And as for life cycles of your great Li-ion batteries, Unkle's died and he had to get a new one, so the lifetime CO2 output of that EV will be far greater than if he'd bought an ICE.

liamog

A battery pack failure does not equal battery cell failure, the pack will be reconditioned and the individual faulty cells replaced. It's pretty standard warranty stuff. The packs are far to useful to be destroyed.

As for that depreciation number on the Model S, it's about in line with any 6 year old luxury car. Though it does seem hard to square the circle of people complaining that 2nd hand vehicles are too expensive, with the cars depreciate too much. Its either one or the other they can lose and hold value at the same time.

cnocbui

liamog wrote: »

A battery pack failure does not equal battery cell failure, the pack will be reconditioned and the individual faulty cells replaced. It's pretty standard warranty stuff. The packs are far to useful to be destroyed.

As for that depreciation number on the Model S, it's about in line with any 6 year old luxury car. Though it does seem hard to square the circle of people complaining that 2nd hand vehicles are too expensive, with the cars depreciate too much. Its either one or the other they can lose and hold value at the same time.

So That 605Kg battery pack is going to be shipped back to Freemont via a large ship so it can be reconditioned? I 'm not sceptical about the EV CO2 stats at all, at all. :rolleyes: