Just seen the Renault ad on ITV 4 - web version below:-

http://www.renault-ze.com/uk/#/uk/home.html

The telly version says they are introducing a range of zero emission cars from next year and the web video shows the designs ?

IMHO, Marketing balls of steel.

Nick

Edited 10 January, 201016 yr by Clunkclick

Their is no such thing as a Zero Emission Car!

Their is no such thing as a Zero Emission Car!

Compared to Shifty’s old car, a Steam Roller is a zero emissions vehicle

Now don't nissan and renault work together

Their is no such thing as a Zero Emission Car!

Now that's being pedantic. I presume their statement is made in the context of the popular perception of the problems associated with the use of the internal combustion engine.

And the marketeers will, with some justification, claim, in comparing like with like, that there will be, in effect, no emissions at the point of use, apart from a bit of brake and tyre dust -assuming that the replaceable battery pack is being centrally refurbished/recycled.

Granted, all that happens is that the pollution problem gets shunted to the origin of the electricity generation and manufacturing systems. But, I would venture to suggest, that here the emissions can be more effectively scrubbed to remove an even higher proportion of the toxic substances than is currently possible in the mobile internal combustion engine.

Presumably they are starting the indoctrination now in order to get the concept sold before the public gets wise to the lifecycle costs of the battery packs.

But, asthe entertainer Kenneth Williams used to say, "Bold", "Very bold". I would have expected Toyota to have been first out the trap.

Nick

Edited 11 January, 201016 yr by Clunkclick

A bit more info . . . .

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109091421729/renault-fluence-zero-emission-concept-first-look

Nick

i recon this could be a disaster tbh. they cant make a reliable car with a normal engine nemind one with a electric motor. french cars and electrics =

"Their is no such thing as a Zero Emission Car!" I do not see that as a pedantic statement at all. Present power supply and distribution are incredibly inefficient and polluting. We appear to be developing a culture that says as long as you can not see the pollutants then their is not a problem, when plainly their is, Not only is the energy supply for electric cars polluting and contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. That if one believes buys into all that is said about global warming. The sourcing and mining of rare metals to manufacture the expensive batteries is also a factor that should be considered. Just like the rare metals that are used to produce catalytic converters, it is believed that the mining and manufacturing process causes far more pollutants than they are ever going to save. How long are the batteries expected to last for before they have to be replaced and what thought have been put to recycling. I do see electric transport as being desirable in closed spaces and for contested cities bu tit must be rememberer that some one, somewhere else may have to suffer instead.

Well if we are dotting I’s and crossing t’s, then a zero emissions car is pretty much just that. What you are saying really Anthony, is there is no such thing as zero emissions power stations and zero emissions mining.

A very bold stand indeed.

The word Zero emissions is meaningless.

The word Zero emissions is meaningless.

Well it’s not really. The car does not emit much at all in the real sense. Probably the driver farting causes more harm to the ozone layer than the car whilst in motion (and yes I have read articles about dust to dust manufacture and rare heavy metals etc etc). Your beef is with how it charges surely. Besides, the cities with smog problems it makes sense to have a zero emission culture. These cars, whilst driving, are within reasonable interpretation, zero emission vehicles.

So you're arguing that a "Zero Emissions car" is any vehicle that burns its fuel in a different county then Amanda? I suggest you check the inefficiency of the National Grid, and of a fossil fuel power station, at which point you will discover that a battery electric car (aside from the environmental costs of the battery pack) actually produces about 140g/km CO2, which is frankly not great by any standards, never mind when you consider how downright slow they are!

Nearest thing to zero emmission car -

And even then the driver COULD generate some :smirk:

So you're arguing that a "Zero Emissions car" is any vehicle that burns its fuel in a different county then Amanda? I suggest you check the inefficiency of the National Grid, and of a fossil fuel power station, at which point you will discover that a battery electric car (aside from the environmental costs of the battery pack) actually produces about 140g/km CO2, which is frankly not great by any standards, never mind when you consider how downright slow they are!

I think it is fair to call a car a zero emissions one, as it function isn’t just to attempt to keep global warming down (and before anyone starts I don’t believe it will make any difference either, possibly just the opposite as per my earlier post) but whilst driving in smog laden cities, these cars could eventually make a substantial difference. Besides those people living in the Outer Hebrides, will have wind generators to drive their electric cars about without harming the environment too much. They could drive all over the place…………….er hang on a mo?

I am not confused by the Emperors Clothes of the flim flam man. I realise how these vehicles are made and how we charge them, although Autocar reckoned they where about the same as petrol cars for emissions when the whole electricity production method was included. They also said (iirc) that this would tip into the favour of the electrical vehicle in the near future. The battery issue is another thing altogether.

Bottom line for me though, is does the vehicle emit? Answer, No! therefore it is a Zero Emissions vehicle (I allow for heat emissions and such like) regardless of how dirty it is in fuelling it, building it or disposing of it.

No such thing as a free dinner :p

Bottom line for me though, is does the vehicle emit? Answer, No! therefore it is a Zero Emissions vehicle (I allow for heat emissions and such like) regardless of how dirty it is in fuelling it, building it or disposing of it.

This is precisely the point; unless you fuel the electric car from renewable sources without causing something else to be fossil-fueled in the process, all you achieve is to move the polution away from the vehicle's point of use, which benefits no-one except battery manufacturers.

This is precisely the point; unless you fuel the electric car from renewable sources without causing something else to be fossil-fueled in the process, all you achieve is to move the polution away from the vehicle's point of use, which benefits no-one except battery manufacturers.

That is not precisely the point as I see it.

The point is, it is called a zero emissions vehicle because it has no emissions. When you get your emissions test done at the local MOT garage or at the dealers they measure the emissions of your car, not the Oil derrick/refinery/tanker/power consumed in pumping fuel into your tank etc It is the emissions of your car. Hence a zero emissions car would test as just that, a Zero Emissions Car. The title of the vehicle is correct, just it doesn’t explain how much filth is produced in putting it together and manufacturing it’s fuel. It is not something the trades description people would worry about and it is something I think is entirely correct in it’s labeling.

This is precisely the point; unless you fuel the electric car from renewable sources without causing something else to be fossil-fueled in the process, all you achieve is to move the polution away from the vehicle's point of use, which benefits no-one except battery manufacturers.

+1

It's like charging your mobile in the ca*r and then saying it costs nothing to run. It still uses energy, which can only be produced on mass via non-renewable sources.

* I recall an article (auto express?) where someone worked out it costs more, and needs more CO2, to charge in a car than via a wall socket.

+1

It's like charging your mobile in the ca*r and then saying it costs nothing to run. It still uses energy, which can only be produced on mass via non-renewable sources.

* I recall an article (auto express?) where someone worked out it costs more, and needs more CO2, to charge in a car than via a wall socket.

I would never expect you to agree with any post I made, but I fail to see what is an untruth in the words Zero Emissions. The manufactures are not calling the car a ‘ zero emission involved in supplying the electricity to charge the car-car’ they are using the English language to describe the accurate fact that the car has no emissions to speak of. I am still waiting to read one single word in this thread to contradict this. As I have repeated more than once in this thread, I understand how these things work and are charged, but that is nothing to do with the car being called a zero emissions car. It does not emit! Therefore they do not lie. Besides I think it was Autocar that worked out that we are at the tipping point for the electrical vehicle being more environmentally friendly than petrol and it will only go further in the electric cars favour with time. If they can only crack the heavy metals issue they would have a genuinely green car too.

The emissions that your car makes and are stated in the specs DO NOT INCLUDE THE ENERGY THAT IT TAKES TO MAKE THE FUEL THAT IT BURNS does it!

[wearily]

Where is this "improved emissions" of electric cars supposed to come from? I just don't accept the word of a shower of muttering rottters (and hence by definition journalists and not power generation and/or transmission engineers) on the subject. The efficiency of fossil fuel power stations hasn't improved significantly since the 1960s, the efficiency of the National Grid won't improve significantly since it's governed by the laws of physics and not by engineering, and "wind power" is a myth; for every watt of installed wind turbines, there is a watt of "spinning reserve" of fossil fuel station available to deal with low or very high wind situations.

Also, please go back and read the Autocar article again; IIRC it did include extraction, refining and transport "cost" in the figures for HC vehicles. On that basis I'd say that electric cars are less environmentally friendly than claimed, unless you believe that road transport causes childhood asthma!

The car may not produce any emissions, but it's fuel would create more CO2 than a combustion engined variant would.

[wearily]

Where is this "improved emissions" of electric cars supposed to come from? I just don't accept the word of a shower of muttering rottters (and hence by definition journalists and not power generation and/or transmission engineers) on the subject. The efficiency of fossil fuel power stations hasn't improved significantly since the 1960s, the efficiency of the National Grid won't improve significantly since it's governed by the laws of physics and not by engineering, and "wind power" is a myth; for every watt of installed wind turbines, there is a watt of "spinning reserve" of fossil fuel station available to deal with low or very high wind situations.

Also, please go back and read the Autocar article again; IIRC it did include extraction, refining and transport "cost" in the figures for HC vehicles. On that basis I'd say that electric cars are less environmentally friendly than claimed, unless you believe that road transport causes childhood asthma!

Suppose there might also be the possibility that wind industry may develop its own reserve capacity by pumping water to high places during periods of low demand and then releasing it as hydro during high demand periods. This solution already exists in one of the valleys of North Wales, and the magnox nucleur reactor it was developed for now lies decommsioned and idle ! I'm sure that similar opportunities must exist in Scotland, Lake District, Northumbria, Peak District, Pennines or any hilly district. Wind power could be a "Four birds with one stone solution" , if the the wonderful joined-up government pulled its digit out. As it would also provide strategically placed water reserves (As safeguard against Glob warming induced drought), create coastal defences using contained pumped water and open-up the inland water bourne leisure industry.

In this case power transmission losses of a centralised system would have virtually no carbon cost.

Can't believe that the cost reduction as well as income generation possibilities of this joined-up approach would be undercut by the petrol-chemical refining system or that it would be any more strategically vulnerable. I'm sure, in a few years time, when all the vested interests have made their own transition to the new technology, it will be the best thing since sliced bread.

Changing the subject slightly, can't help thinking of all that constant and increased torque across the rev band.

Nick

Edited 14 January, 201016 yr by Clunkclick

Ref pumped storage of wind generated electricity, that's all very well until you get 3 weeks or so of next to no wind (just when did that last happen, oh last week!) Also, I'm well aware of conventional and pumped storage hydro (like most Scots, since most PS hydro capacity is in Scotland), and it's presently being used for load-balancing to keep fossil fuel stations running in their most efficient regime. At present there's about 1 additional PS hydro plant identified, and that requires the adaption of a conventional hydo plant by fitting reversable motor-generators and water turbines. That said, in the general case, building a new PS hydro plant requires a steep fall, a large lower reservoir, and a suitable site for the upper reservoir, so Scotland is starting to run out of suitable sites!!

Ref pumped storage of wind generated electricity, that's all very well until you get 3 weeks or so of next to no wind (just when did that last happen, oh last week!) Also, I'm well aware of conventional and pumped storage hydro (like most Scots, since most PS hydro capacity is in Scotland), and it's presently being used for load-balancing to keep fossil fuel stations running in their most efficient regime. At present there's about 1 additional PS hydro plant identified, and that requires the adaption of a conventional hydo plant by fitting reversable motor-generators and water turbines. That said, in the general case, building a new PS hydro plant requires a steep fall, a large lower reservoir, and a suitable site for the upper reservoir, so Scotland is starting to run out of suitable sites!!

The interests who are making the investment in the wind farms, particularly the offshore ones, I would hope will have chosen sites where their income is maximised i.e. the wind blows all the time, or with relatively few interruptions. There are places like this on earth - I went on my hols to one such place last year - Finistere and most of the bay of Biscay. I think that the disposition and location of such is unlikely to alter radically over time, so the risk of having to source alternate supplies is low. There is a carbon cost to wind farms in terms of construction and maintnance and transmission, but I would venture to suggest that its far less than the fossil fuel equivalent.

How many miles of potentially water inundateable coastline in the UK ?

How many supertankers built a year ? How many shipping and refinery accidents/losses ?

Plus. We a'int a superpower any more and are not able, without militarising the whole economy (No pastel shades there) to defend extended lines of supply or contest rights to materials that are not located on our doorstep (and even that's doubtful), and the supply of dictattorial third world leaders who are well-advised enough to do further titled playing field energy deals with us is somewaht short supply. !

The whole of the UK is titled on the continental crust, so few opportunities there for a gravity powered system !

Nick