I am going to get long pipes to connect to the exhausts of all my vehicles and in each will carry a very large bag. All the fumes from the exhausts will be collected until I get home and then I will release it all. Then all my vehicles including tractors and large 4x4 and 6x6 will be ZERO EMISSIONS???????????????????? I will not have to pay tax and everyone will suddenly love me! Yer right.

I do not think so somehow, yet manufacturers and owners of electric vehicles seam to think that this is OK for them!

If you refuse to believe a car when it says it is a Zero Emissions vehicle, then you should suggest to the Inland Revenue of the MoT that you are not paying enough Road Tax based on the erroneous measurements of your own cars published CO/CO2 outputs. After all, the enormous amount of energy expended in getting the fuel to your tank has to be paid for by excess emissions by a third party. Oil tankers are horrendously polluting for instance.

You can not have it both ways. And as I understand it, the English words that have been applied to the ‘Zero Emissions’ cars are reasonably accurate.

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

That is not the point I make. It does not emit any noticeable amount of crud as it drives about and for places like California that is important. Hence one of the original inceptors for the drive for these daft vehicles. Your vehicle states it emits 'X' grms of 'death to the planet', but that is a fraction of the amount expended in order to refine and get the fuel into your tank.

I hate Electric cars in general, but they are entitled to call their car Zero Emitters because their car does not emit any real world CO/CO2. This saying (as mentioned above about petrol and diesel cars) moving of the goal posts to say......... 'yes, but how do they make the electricity etc' is pointless. it is changing the issue of the correct naming of the vehicle to make some secondary point. Also as mentioned above, batteries aside, the electric car is running about equal to petrol cars in the full cycle of collection. refinement and transportation of energy and is about to go ahead of hydrocarbons altogether in real world measurement of collective emissions/mile driven.

Californian definition of a "Zero Emissions Vehicle" - one which burns its fuel in another state! If you can't understand that describing battery electric as "ZEV" is a piece of environ %20 mentalist political spin with no relationship to real World polution... In any event, you're the one that's trying to have it both ways by quoting the Autosprout article to say that battery electric is "nearly as efficient as hydrocarbon" when what said article showed was that it's not as efficient even after allowing for oil refining and transport costs (and I can't remember if it included the costs of moving fuel to power stations).

And exactly why should I care about a problem that Los Angeles has anyway?

Edited 15 January, 201016 yr by KenONeill

When will I be able to get an electric car that will tow my caravan to the south of France with a couple of 10 minute refueling (recharging) stops?

Californian definition of a "Zero Emissions Vehicle" - one which burns its fuel in another state! If you can't understand that describing battery electric as "ZEV" is a piece of environ %20 mentalist political spin with no relationship to real World polution... In any event, you're the one that's trying to have it both ways by quoting the Autosprout article to say that battery electric is "nearly as efficient as hydrocarbon" when what said article showed was that it's not as efficient even after allowing for oil refining and transport costs (and I can't remember if it included the costs of moving fuel to power stations).

And exactly why should I care about a problem that Los Angeles has anyway?

Not sure if you are referring to my post as I referred to (not quoted) AutoCAR???? But in any event. I stand by my understanding of the English language. If you are prepared to agree to the stated emissions of your own vehicle, then you by any reasonably yard stick, should agree to the ZEV quoted figures, It is only fair.

As for Los Angeles???? I couldn’t give a fig about their problems tbh.

I have NEVER stated that the fuel for the ZEV comes without emissions elsewhere and anyone who thinks that I did needs to get some medical help. I have only ever stated that the words Zero Emissions VEHICLE is correct as near as dammit. Besides the Autocar article I referred to, stated that the total emissive cost between the two fuel types WAS around the same at this moment in time and that it was clearly projected to tip in the electric cars favour in the forthcoming years. Just because you don’t like it will not stop it from coming. I hate the idea, but the numbers are not false.

So I ask again in a more direct manner. What is the true emission figure of you own vehicle and why don’t you pay the appropriate higher tax that it deserves????

Edited 17 January, 201016 yr by Lady Elanore

Fascinating.

Even if the pollution is just moved elsewhere, it will be coniderably less in quantity for equivalent mileage:-

http://earth2tech.com/2009/08/12/cheat-sheet-truth-about-sky-high-mpg-claims-for-electric-hybrid-and-mini-cars/

The lithium power pack as a supply of motive power will have to be substituted for something else in the near future as the known World reserves of the metal, assuming the total supply was all devoted to automotive uses, could probably only support 50 -100 million cars at any one time:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

The likelihood is within 10 -15 years it will be replaced/supplemented by the hydrogen fuel cell:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

It looks like, in due course (25 years) wind power and other eco power sources will become substantial producers of power for the national grid (30%) and the opportunity will present it self for the car to become really carbon free in use and an integrated part of power generation and storage system:-

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2008/t_1.html

And then in 50-70 years time, assuming we haven't anilhilated each other by then, virtually unlimited, very low cost cost and carbon cost, power will come on stream:-

http://www.iter.org/default.aspx

And as to the limits of mobility of these type of cars, solar cells are already a source of re-charging power and on-the-move induction re-charging can't be that far away.

In the meantime, there's the prospect of that millions of inner city dwellers will be relieved of the prospect and actualte of epidemic proportioned particle emission induced lung diseases.

As to French electrrics, I seem to recall that my MK1 1981 Golf had Ducelier ignition components which functioned satisfactorily and endured, unmodified, for the life of the car (16 years). IMHO a large part of the improved technology could be implemented now and its only in the observance of the community's conservative attitude to change and the desire to extract the maximum contribution to company profit from each progression that makes each move foward so tortuous

But as I said before, given this extended time-line for change and large scale vested interests in the existing system (Which, as we speak, are probably driving the planetary population to another World War) , a bold move by Renault.

I get the distinct feeling these ideas, which are a burgoening reality now, are as remote to some of the petrol heads on this forum as the concept of electricity would have been to a 17th Century farm labourer. Plus ca change. Only the time lines alter. Blue touch paper lit . . .

Nick

Edited 17 January, 201016 yr by Clunkclick

Not sure if you are referring to my post as I referred to (not quoted) AutoCAR???? But in any event. I stand by my understanding of the English language. If you are prepared to agree to the stated emissions of your own vehicle, then you by any reasonably yard stick, should agree to the ZEV quoted figures, It is only fair.

As for Los Angeles???? I couldn’t give a fig about their problems tbh.

I have NEVER stated that the fuel for the ZEV comes without emissions elsewhere and anyone who thinks that I did needs to get some medical help. I have only ever stated that the words Zero Emissions VEHICLE is correct as near as dammit. Besides the Autocar article I referred to, stated that the total emissive cost between the two fuel types WAS around the same at this moment in time and that it was clearly projected to tip in the electric cars favour in the forthcoming years. Just because you don’t like it will not stop it from coming. I hate the idea, but the numbers are not false.

So I ask again in a more direct manner. What is the true emission figure of you own vehicle and why don’t you pay the appropriate higher tax that it deserves????

You are the one who is trying to have it both ways, by ignoring the costs of generating electricity for the battery car, and then expecting hydrocarbon cars to cover fuel transport and refing energy costs as well as the cost of using the fuel.

And I'm not prepared to dignify an argument that requires me to redesign parts of the vehicle taxation system with an answer!

Thinking about their wording in the advert.

They mention available IIRC in the advert. So they could price them very high and still meet their sales spiel?

You are the one who is trying to have it both ways, by ignoring the costs of generating electricity for the battery car, and then expecting hydrocarbon cars to cover fuel transport and refing energy costs as well as the cost of using the fuel.

And I'm not prepared to dignify an argument that requires me to redesign parts of the vehicle taxation system with an answer!

Hadn’t bothered to catch up with this thread for a few days, but I can’t believe you haven’t bothered to read my posts Ken? I clearly state about the electricity is not ‘free from emissions’ ??????????????

In English, ‘the vehicle (not the power station, or the hamster powered generators) does not emit. So using the English language and the general understanding of ‘what words mean’, the car does not emit………………the fossil fuel generation stations do. Therefore the title is still correct no matter how hard you try to adjust the definition of the title ‘Zero Emissions’ Sorry, but it really is that simple.

Oh and if you think the taxation system needs redesigning, then I hope you will be pleased when your own car goes up several groups to pay for all those emissions from refineries and fuel transportation.

Fascinating.

Even if the pollution is just moved elsewhere, it will be coniderably less in quantity for equivalent mileage:-

http://earth2tech.com/2009/08/12/cheat-sheet-truth-about-sky-high-mpg-claims-for-electric-hybrid-and-mini-cars/

The lithium power pack as a supply of motive power will have to be substituted for something else in the near future as the known World reserves of the metal, assuming the total supply was all devoted to automotive uses, could probably only support 50 -100 million cars at any one time:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

The likelihood is within 10 -15 years it will be replaced/supplemented by the hydrogen fuel cell:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

It looks like, in due course (25 years) wind power and other eco power sources will become substantial producers of power for the national grid (30%) and the opportunity will present it self for the car to become really carbon free in use and an integrated part of power generation and storage system:-

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2008/t_1.html

And then in 50-70 years time, assuming we haven't anilhilated each other by then, virtually unlimited, very low cost cost and carbon cost, power will come on stream:-

http://www.iter.org/default.aspx

And as to the limits of mobility of these type of cars, solar cells are already a source of re-charging power and on-the-move induction re-charging can't be that far away.

In the meantime, there's the prospect of that millions of inner city dwellers will be relieved of the prospect and actualte of epidemic proportioned particle emission induced lung diseases.

As to French electrrics, I seem to recall that my MK1 1981 Golf had Ducelier ignition components which functioned satisfactorily and endured, unmodified, for the life of the car (16 years). IMHO a large part of the improved technology could be implemented now and its only in the observance of the community's conservative attitude to change and the desire to extract the maximum contribution to company profit from each progression that makes each move foward so tortuous

But as I said before, given this extended time-line for change and large scale vested interests in the existing system (Which, as we speak, are probably driving the planetary population to another World War) , a bold move by Renault.

I get the distinct feeling these ideas, which are a burgoening reality now, are as remote to some of the petrol heads on this forum as the concept of electricity would have been to a 17th Century farm labourer. Plus ca change. Only the time lines alter. Blue touch paper lit . . .

Nick

If you expect some of the usual suspects to bite then, you will need to dumb down your output I'm afraid.

I don't have particularly strong feelings on this issue apart from the fact we should get used to travelling less

what about the methane emitted by the cattle that end up as the leather interior...wont somebody please think of the children

Hadn’t bothered to catch up with this thread for a few days, but I can’t believe you haven’t bothered to read my posts Ken? I clearly state about the electricity is not ‘free from emissions’ ??????????????

In English, ‘the vehicle (not the power station, or the hamster powered generators) does not emit. So using the English language and the general understanding of ‘what words mean’, the car does not emit………………the fossil fuel generation stations do. Therefore the title is still correct no matter how hard you try to adjust the definition of the title ‘Zero Emissions’ Sorry, but it really is that simple.

Oh and if you think the taxation system needs redesigning, then I hope you will be pleased when your own car goes up several groups to pay for all those emissions from refineries and fuel transportation.

Neither had I. For the record, you are using semantics to argue something which is manifestly not the case, except possibly to environ mentalists. "ZEV" does not mean low, never mind no, emissions, as they seem to be trying to get people to believe.

Incidentally, I'm afraid I don't have an original source for this, but I recently read a letter in a car club magazine which claimed that making an electric car causes more CO2 than making a typical hydrocarbon car, and driving it for 100_000 miles.

Oh yeah, and I think I can live with an extra 20g/km, when everyone else gets hit with the same.

Edited 27 January, 201016 yr by KenONeill

There is nothing pedantic about realising the naming of the vehicle itself, is correct. It is pedantic to suggest otherwise. If I was to eat a piece of beef in a restaurant, I wouldn’t call the manager in and say “this is not 100% beef! It is made from grass and supplements! Therefore it is largely a grassburger or a cow hybrid meal”