London pollution & ULEZ

adam cool dude said:
I never said it did. I don't think you are grasping what I am saying. This is a debate of using a car that has already had its carbon footprint from production Vs purchasing a brand new car that needs to be built from scratch to be "green".

The issue you have from a pure emmisions standpoint is that with a car that emits 225g/km it will take 100,000 km/s before the Tesla which took 22 tonnes to produce to break even. That is on the assumption it runs 100% from renewable charging. That is nearly 9 years I would have to drive my old Saab before the Tesla would start to overtake if it was run 100% on renewables on an average mileage of 11000 km's a year. If you traded in your new Tesla for another new EV before that time it would be even worse. You would be talking close to two decades.

Our consumer consumption is far more damaging in that regard and I will admit I am the same as we all like nice new shiny things. A well maintained HGV can quite easily do a million miles in its lifetime and there is no reason why a car couldn't do the same.
Click to expand...

Theres more to emissions and impact on local air (and noise) quality than just personal break even point.

If you are doing not much driving and have an old car, shouldn't have to change. But are the costs unviable if you don't drive much with an old car?

If you drive a little a lot and are on a tight budget that's a whole different thing.
 
OspreyO said:
Theres more to emissions and impact on local air (and noise) quality than just personal break even point.

If you are doing not much driving and have an old car, shouldn't have to change. But are the costs unviable if you don't drive much with an old car?

If you drive a little a lot and are on a tight budget that's a whole different thing.
Click to expand...

Emissions impact on local air is pointless if you are ruining the world elsewhere.
 
The 3rd runway is still undead - no ?

c4 last night saw the mayors spending some of his gotten gains buttering up the electorate, not quite a monorail, just overhead tram, all the best towns have them

meanwhile the ulez cameras apparently fair game, how many would you have to remove to give yourself a chance.
 
adam cool dude said:
Emissions impact on local air is pointless if you are ruining the world elsewhere.
Click to expand...
That is the dumbest thing to say, ever. I mean for one, I don't want to breath crap. The wider environment is important, but my personal health from sucking in particulate is my primary priority. I'd rather it be somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
 
I see Andy Burnham as read the room by pausing CAZ until he gets more money from the government.

www.theguardian.com

Vindication or cowardice? Andy Burnham’s clean air gamble in Manchester

After the Ulez debate, some see the Greater Manchester mayor’s U-turn on introducing his own ‘Caz’ zone as a politician reading the room, while others see it as a climbdown
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The article seems a bit anti Burnham, even though they acknowledge the opposition.

The article also lied about the pollution levels, saying all boroughs have roads breaking the limits. This is false.
 
adam cool dude said:
I never said it did. I don't think you are grasping what I am saying. This is a debate of using a car that has already had its carbon footprint from production Vs purchasing a brand new car that needs to be built from scratch to be "green".

The issue you have from a pure emmisions standpoint is that with a car that emits 225g/km it will take 100,000 km/s before the Tesla which took 22 tonnes to produce to break even. That is on the assumption it runs 100% from renewable charging. That is nearly 9 years I would have to drive my old Saab before the Tesla would start to overtake if it was run 100% on renewables on an average mileage of 11000 km's a year. If you traded in your new Tesla for another new EV before that time it would be even worse. You would be talking close to two decades.

Our consumer consumption is far more damaging in that regard and I will admit I am the same as we all like nice new shiny things. A well maintained HGV can quite easily do a million miles in its lifetime and there is no reason why a car couldn't do the same.
Click to expand...
But that ICE vehicle had to be made from scratch as well, the initial build has to be included into the lifetime figures.
Or by your calculations a second hand ev is carbon free if run on solar?
 
m4rmite said:
But that ICE vehicle had to be made from scratch as well, the initial build has to be included into the lifetime figures.
Or by your calculations a second hand ev is carbon free if run on solar?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't count because it was in the past. It has already happened. It has no effect on global warming at this present date. The whole point of improving emissions across everything is to reduce global warming. You cannot change what has happened in the past but you can improve the future. That is whole "point" of going electric at least that is what they want you to believe. In my example using my old car is far more logical than trading it in for a brand new EV when looking at global warming as a whole. Unless I were to use that EV and keep it for 9+ years then it would make sense vs just using my car for another 9 years then purchase something new then. The only issue is that EV tech is evolving at such a rapid rate that in 9 years time it will be scrap compared to what will be available then.
 
Last edited:
adam cool dude said:
No it doesn't count because it was in the past. It has already happened. It has no effect on global warming at this present date. The whole point of improving emissions across everything is to reduce global warming. You cannot change what has happened in the past but you can improve the future. That is whole "point" of going electric at least that is what they want you to believe. In my example using my old car is far more logical than trading it in for a brand new EV when looking at global warming as a whole. Unless I were to use that EV and keep it for 9+ years then it would make sense vs just using my car for another 9 years then purchase something new then. The only issue is that EV tech is evolving at such a rapid rate that in 9 years time it will be scrap compared to what will be available then.
Click to expand...
So many myths and twaddle.
All the ice vehicles built in the past don't contribute to emissions?
Then by your way if thinking, the future emissions from not only using petrol/ diesel but also the production of petrol and diesel don't count because they were created a couple of weeks ago.
The average age a car is kept on the road is 14.5 years, I follow some Belchers every day to and from work.
But your saying they are clean because the rest is in the past.

Dear lord.
Is the earth flat by you?
 
why don't you read his post (again) - he's talking about stupidity of replacing a car that still has life and just ongoing emissions ,with a new one/ev which will initially incur a carbon&pollution cost from its manufacture for the first 3years/30K miles or so, before becoming clean/cleansed
...by which point the congestion zone will itself have expanded for all vehicle types, and maybe people will start considering if having a car is affordable at all.
 
jpaul said:
The 3rd runway is still undead - no ?

c4 last night saw the mayors spending some of his gotten gains buttering up the electorate, not quite a monorail, just overhead tram, all the best towns have them

meanwhile the ulez cameras apparently fair game, how many would you have to remove to give yourself a chance.
Click to expand...
You referring to superloop? If so those are bus routes not a tram.
 
m4rmite said:
So many myths and twaddle.
All the ice vehicles built in the past don't contribute to emissions?
Then by your way if thinking, the future emissions from not only using petrol/ diesel but also the production of petrol and diesel don't count because they were created a couple of weeks ago.
The average age a car is kept on the road is 14.5 years, I follow some Belchers every day to and from work.
But your saying they are clean because the rest is in the past.

Dear lord.
Is the earth flat by you?
Click to expand...
You've not understood him at all. A bit unfair to be questioning their intelligence with the comment at the end there too.
 
SPG said:
No but your battery will be ****** in 10 years if not sooner, or expect the range of a shopping trolly and even worse in winters. EV is not the answer is the earth flat to you as well ?
Click to expand...
Hmm there's teslas that were made in 2008 and leafs in 2010.
Leafs had no liquid cooling and are still about.
No it's quite hilly by me.
 
jpaul said:
why don't you read his post (again) - he's talking about stupidity of replacing a car that still has life and just ongoing emissions ,with a new one/ev which will initially incur a carbon&pollution cost from its manufacture for the first 3years/30K miles or so, before becoming clean/cleansed
...by which point the congestion zone will itself have expanded for all vehicle types, and maybe people will start considering if having a car is affordable at all.
Click to expand...
People will replace a car when they want regardless of fuel used.
They don't think " O I need to have travelled xx amount of miles" to offset my carbon footprint.
If people held onto their cars for 10 years there wouldn't be and 3 year old second hand cars, ignoring fleet cars.
 
adam cool dude said:
Our consumer consumption is far more damaging in that regard and I will admit I am the same as we all like nice new shiny things.
Click to expand...
Exactly,and I think it applies to so many other things as a whole. We have gone from a repair culture to a throw away culture where things are not repaired. So many things like phones and laptops are not designed to be easily repaired or upgraded. So many laptops have soldered CPUs,memory and SSDs. Hard to repair and hard to upgrade.

Then we seem to want to export our waste and pollution producing industries abroad. China used to accept a lot of it:
www.politico.eu

China’s trash ban forces Europe to confront its waste problem

Beijing kills EU’s ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approach to its mountains of garbage.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu

I have seen reports of countries in Africa and Asia where we seem to be dumping our waste. This is ridiculous.

A lot of the EVs don't seemed to be be built with 10~20 year lifespans in mind. They should be built with modular battery packs,ease of upgrade of motors,etc so that older cars can be have parts replaced,or upgraded with newer tech,etc. I would like to see modular battery packs,so the battery packs are delinked from the car companies who have no impetus than to push you to buy a new car. That way we can more competition in the battery market.

But I don't see many car companies that bothered with that - its up to governments to start forcing this.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Exactly,and I think it applies to so many other things as a whole. We have gone from a repair culture to a throw away culture where things are not repaired. So many things like phones and laptops are not designed to be easily repaired or upgraded. So many laptops have soldered CPUs,memory and SSDs. Hard to repair and hard to upgrade.

A lot of the EVs don't seemed to be be built with 10~20 year lifespans in mind. They should be built with modular battery packs,ease of upgrade of motors,etc so that older cars can be have parts replaced,or upgraded with newer tech,etc. I would like to see modular battery packs,so the battery packs are delinked from the car companies who have no impetus than to push you to buy a new car. That way we can more competition in the battery market.

But I don't see many car companies that bothered with that - its up to governments to start forcing this.
Click to expand...
Yeah but if you have removable batteries then uhh criminals will blow you up or something. /lobby argument
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom