3 hours ago, Crasher said:

How anyone can buy a Chinese car with a clean conscience eludes me...

How anyone can pay to bring another ICE into the world with a clean conscience eludes me...

 

By the way, the device you used to post that, where was it made?

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

How anyone can pay to bring another ICE into the world with a clean conscience eludes me...

 

By the way, the device you used to post that, where was it made?

 

Just bought an Arkana, petrol ultra mild hybrid.

 

Chinese, haa,

 

The Arkana was original Russian and Ukrainian, using Lada and sometime Renault badge.

Now built in South Korea by Samsung as Part of the Mitsubishi, Nissan, Samsung, Renault Alliance. Complicate business.

 

Many, many cars have some Chinese bits in them.

 

 

13 hours ago, wyx087 said:

How anyone can pay to bring another ICE into the world with a clean conscience eludes me...

 

By the way, the device you used to post that, where was it made?

 

There is nothing wrong with the ICE, a 150 year old technology that had been perfected but has now evolved into a monosity due to stupid legislation caused by a minority group of moronic shouty mouthy eco nutters. I have no problem with producing electricity without using fossil fuels but that electricity could be used to produce synthetic fuel which could be initially blended with Bio and fossil fuels; this blend could be distributed, stored, dispensed and used in the technology and infrastructure we already have rather than sent into a 1 tonne chemical bomb under the floor via a network we don't yet have. I hope I live long enough to see EV's become the disaster I am convinced they will be.

 

I assume my PC is made China BUT we don't have a choice whereas with cars we do have a choice. China is a pariah state and I do my best to avoid buying anything from there as much as possible.

The synthetic fuels require huge amounts of electricity to produce even now as was the case in the 1940,s when Germany was producing it.   Bio fuels are taking lots of land up to produce the plants that could be land producing food.  Which is why countries like in Europe are pulling back on bio. 

24 minutes ago, Crasher said:

There is nothing wrong with the ICE, a 150 year old technology that had been perfected but has now evolved into a monosity due to stupid legislation caused by a minority group of moronic shouty mouthy eco nutters. I have no problem with producing electricity without using fossil fuels but that electricity could be used to produce synthetic fuel which could be initially blended with Bio and fossil fuels; this blend could be distributed, stored, dispensed and used in the technology and infrastructure we already have rather than sent into a 1 tonne chemical bomb under the floor via a network we don't yet have. I hope I live long enough to see EV's become the disaster I am convinced they will be.

Wow, where to begin...... If that is how you feel, I don't think anything posted on any forum can made any impact.

 

But let me set the facts right:

- old technology that used to work well does not mean we can ignore modern realisation on its damaging effects

- synthetic fuel requires huge amount of electricity and the burn cycle still produces extremely harmful NOx

- the distribution and mining of fossil fuel also produces a lot of harmful emissions, this has NEVER been accounted for in any lifetime vehicle studies, only pump to wheel for ICE cars. Compared to electricity production - transmission - charging - wheel AND battery mining + production for EV's

- batteries can burn violently if punctured or damaged. But as percentage, EV fires are rarer than ICE car fires.

 

You two chaps are EV evangelistis so whatever an ICE evangelist like myself says, you will already have an answer ready to counter my response, even to questions I have not even asked; the only proof will be time. EV fires are rarer by percentage (you had that answer ready when I hadn't even specifically mentioned the subject) but these cars are all virtually brand new, what will they be like when they are 20 years old and bodged like many 20 year old ICE cars are now? BUT it is not specifically the dangers I see as being their failing, there are so many downsides I don't really know where to start but IF manufacturers eventually make the perfect EV with absolutely no downsides that even I could think of (apart from being too quiet) and the charging infrastructure was in place, it still does not answer the question of where the power will come from, we are already on a brown out knife edge and now we find out that our largest "green" power source is a complete con The green energy scandal exposed

@Crasher13 year old EV's are doing just fine.  They are out there doing what they were engineered to do. 

 

I have a 17 year old diesel that does 26 mpg and a 12 year old petrol that does 46 mpg and have kept cars for 15 years and more for a few decades.

If no car was ever build again in the world there are enough to keep the world rolling along.

 

The Westminster Government is the issue as far as renewables and electricity in the UK, but especially in England. 

Have nuclear anyplace the people want in England.

 

& unlike the Tory MP that yesterday said that there are places with nobody where fracking can be done. Frack where the people are that want the gas.

Right in their towns and areas.

It is not going for Power Stations for energy for homes anyway, it is for Oil Refineries and Petrochemical plants to produce products. 

 

Scotland thankfully is resources rich and the Westminster Government can be ignored for some stuff. 

Lots of land, coast and sea bed and not a large population.  

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63229402

 

The SNP want to keep Oil & Gas in the North North Sea for when Scotland is Independent, for when it is truely valuable,

now finally the licences for exploration is for off England.  High time that oil and gas was exploited. 

 

 

 

Edited 13 October, 20223 yr by roottoot

3 hours ago, Crasher said:

EV fires are rarer by percentage (you had that answer ready when I hadn't even specifically mentioned the subject)

3 hours ago, Crasher said:

1 tonne chemical bomb under the floor

What else could you be referring when referring batteries as "bomb"?

Did I misunderstood you and you were talking about a highly flammable liquid?

 

3 hours ago, Crasher said:

what will they be like when they are 20 years old

I have a 8 years old first-gen Nissan Leaf, zero problem with it at all and have done zero powertrain servicing after warranty ran out.  I don't expect ANY problem with the electric powertrain, unlike younger ICE cars I've had previously.

 

3 hours ago, Crasher said:

it still does not answer the question of where the power will come from, we are already on a brown out knife edge and now we find out that our largest "green" power source is a complete con The green energy scandal exposed

The abstract for the documentary summarises it quite well: Drax power station is chopping down trees from precious forests. End of the day, it's still burning, it's not clean by any stretch of imagination. What has this got anything to do with things that are truly clean: solar, wind, tilde or nuclear?

 

Power will come from existing national grid capacity, that has spare capacity to power ALL cars if ALL cars were electric overnight. Straight from horse's mouth: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions

 

The knife edge brown out you speak of is during peak demand periods. The root cause for this is due to too much demand and supply not able to follow, this is old and expensive method of matching supply to demand. EV can actually help us to get cheaper electricity by allowing more cheap renewables or nuclear baseload to be built and reduce variations between peak and off-peak demand. The smart way is to match demand to renewable supplies.

 

3 hours ago, Crasher said:

there are so many downsides I don't really know where to start

Let's see:

- cancer inducing localised air pollution from tailpipe

- majority of slowing down produces brake dust

- horrendous life-time green house gas emissions

- inconvenience of having to detour somewhere to refuel

- re-fuel prices tied to geopolitics and oil cartels

- many moving parts and high maintenance requirements

Compared to:

- no tailpipe emission, less brake dust

- much lower lifetime green house gas emission

- recharge at home, takes 5s to plug/unplug

- recharge while stopped for toilet/food during a long trip

- stable re-charge prices

- zero maintenance requirement for the powertrain means zero downtime garage visits

 

 

Again, not trying to change your mind. But it would be good if you stop spreading misinformation, such as questioning the grid capacity, EV reliability and safety.

Edited 13 October, 20223 yr by wyx087

As I said, you have answers for everything, grid capacity is a well documented worry. I haven't questioned EV safety, that is words put into my mouth and as for reliability, I never went there. I think the modern expresion is "triggered". I don't have a problem with people buying EV's if they want to (except from China) what I object to is the forthcoming ban on ICE's that says you have to if you buy new and that is simple wrong and undemocratic. Anyway when China invades Taiwan and the world slaps sanctions on China and you have an MG that needs spares...

What will happen is that VW Group will be selling and first registering a lot less cars in the EU and the UK because without the partners they use in the Emissions Pool to get the average C02 emission figures they can not build and sell cars.

MG being one of the manufacturers VW Group use as VW Group have not the models themselves.

 

http://electrive.com/2021/01/15/volkswagen-adds-ev-makers-to-co2-pool-with-saic

If there is a way to cheat then Vorsprung Durch Technik.

http://insideevs.com/news/475232/europe-volkjswagen-group-missed-2020-co2-target

 

 

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

 

 

Edited 13 October, 20223 yr by roottoot

3 hours ago, Crasher said:

grid capacity is a well documented worry.

Please do share this document.

 

3 hours ago, Crasher said:

I haven't questioned EV safety

9 hours ago, Crasher said:

sent into a 1 tonne chemical bomb under the floor

Please do define your "1 tonne chemical bomb".

 

3 hours ago, Crasher said:

as for reliability, I never went there.

8 hours ago, Crasher said:

what will they be like when they are 20 years old

Reliability - the quality of being trustworthy or of performing consistently well.

 

3 hours ago, Crasher said:

what I object to is the forthcoming ban on ICE's that says you have to if you buy new and that is simple wrong and undemocratic.

Why is it wrong to ban ICE when it has been proven to cause more climate change, cancer and death?

Is it undemocratic for the government to put people's best interest at heart and ban a technology that can be easily replaced with another?

 

 

If I answered all your questions to the finest detail you would already have prepared replies so what is the point? You can't argue with an evangelist, it's a waste of time but easily replaced, come on!

@Crasher. I think what it is is people actually learning facts and listening to myths and using common sense and being prepared to have an open mind.   I can play devil's advocate as much as anyone.  I am charging EV,s in Scotland which is different from in England, then the UK is different again from other world regions.   Sadly the burning of coal in England to generate electricity is ridiculous and is happening because of failures of the 

Westminster government.  The local authorities and public blocking solar and on shore wind and battery storage is a scandal.   Those areas should be first to have Power Cuts if any are required. 

Edited 14 October, 20223 yr by roottoot

17 minutes ago, Crasher said:

If I answered all your questions to the finest detail you would already have prepared replies so what is the point? You can't argue with an evangelist, it's a waste of time but easily replaced, come on!

No, I am simply writing replies to your statements. There's no prepared replies to anything other than wanting to seek out truth from tabloid headlines. 

 

If you are not prepared to stand behind your statements, then don't make them. It's that simple. If you make any statements, then provide sources, otherwise you are just a simple armchair keyboard warrior that has zero credibility. 

This is the reason I stopped coming on this forum, poisonous attitude.

53 minutes ago, Crasher said:

This is the reason I stopped coming on this forum, poisonous attitude.

 

The thing one has to remember is that if we don't provide respectable sources to the information we write, it means the statements are personal opinions or worse, deliberate attempt at spreading misinformation, or FUD as they call it (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

 

Sorry to say, some of the things you wrote is quite hard to read as though it is your personal opinion. Prime examples of FUD: 

On 13/10/2022 at 10:21, Crasher said:

electricity without using fossil fuels but that electricity could be used to produce [synthetic fuel]...... rather than sent into a 1 tonne chemical bomb under the floor via a network we don't yet have.

On 13/10/2022 at 11:08, Crasher said:

we are already on a brown out knife edge

 

29 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

it means the statements are personal opinions or worse, deliberate attempt at spreading misinformation, or FUD as they call it (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

 

What, like this?

On 12/10/2022 at 20:20, wyx087 said:

How anyone can pay to bring another ICE into the world with a clean conscience eludes me...

 

 

Seems quite a reasonable response to the post that was about buying a Chinese car and a clean conscience which was posted without a winky thing.

6 hours ago, Breezy_Pete said:

What, like this?

 

The sentence can only be interpreted as my personal opinion. When have anyone used that sentence construct to state facts?

 

Also, as pointed out, it was a sarcastic re-wording of the over dramatic quoted post.

So it's OK to try to make everyone feel guilty who may have recently purchased or be planning to purchase a conventionally powered car, if it's a tit for tat attack on another poster?

 

 

It is not taking the first post seriously as i read it.  But maybe @wyx087was being serious. 

16 minutes ago, Breezy_Pete said:

So it's OK to try to make everyone feel guilty who may have recently purchased or be planning to purchase a conventionally powered car, if it's a tit for tat attack on another poster?

Again, it's a sarcastic re-wording of @Crasher  not an attack but a way to point out the laughable over dramatic statement that was made.

 

If you are asking me, then I think you should also ask @Crasher why it's okay to try to make everyone feel guilty who may have recently purchased or be planning to purchase a Chinese car.

Just seemed (to me) hypocritical (of you) to bang on about 'FUD' stuff whilst trying constantly to influence people towards EVs and away from conventional cars.

I don't need you or root to agree. 😁

 

Edited 14 October, 20223 yr by Breezy_Pete

4 minutes ago, Breezy_Pete said:

Just seemed (to me) hypocritical (of you) to bang on about 'FUD' stuff whilst trying constantly to influence people towards EVs and away from conventional cars.

I don't need you or root to agree. 😁

 

I'm puzzled, why is influencing people toward EV has anything to do with spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt? If anything, it's removing fear, clarifying uncertainty and doubt by presenting facts through official or well researched sources.

 

Please do elaborate on your reasoning. I'm afraid I'm not following.

As I said, I don't need you to agree.