View previous topic | View next topic

Global Warming is a Hoax

Page 19 of 21
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21  Next


What do you think?
Global Warming is a hoax
7%
 7%  [ 5 ]
It's real, but is mostly natural
25%
 25%  [ 17 ]
It's real, and is mostly affected by man
59%
 59%  [ 39 ]
Ooh look, a brown dog outside my window...
7%
 7%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 66

dr.bob
1350390.  Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:50 am Reply with quote

The worldwide picture will be skewed by an awful lot of interest groups. Figures from places like the US, where oil money holds a lot of political power, will naturally drag the average down. However, this is not due to some inherent fault in EVs.

The example of Norway shows that, if the political will exists, EVs are capable of becoming much more than an insignificant sideshow.

 
barbados
1350395.  Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:41 am Reply with quote

The Norway efforts are certainly impressive, however - even taking those, the Netherlands, and Iceland into account the take up is at best marginal. And surely, if those three are the lowest is 15% of all new car sales being EV/PHEVs, then it is those that are skewing the figure, not the remaining countries where the figure is much lower (for example China lead the way of the remaining "larger economies" with 5.2% and of the remaining nations only the UK, France, Germany and Canada are over 2%)

 
dr.bob
1350551.  Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:00 am Reply with quote

You seem to have entirely missed my point.

I explained that low take up in some countries "is not due to some inherent fault in EVs", as the figures in Norway demonstrate.

 
barbados
1350553.  Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:13 am Reply with quote

You said the worldwide figure was skewed because of all of the countries that didn’t have an uptake similar to one to defend your point that uptake of EVs was not marginal.
There is a very low uptake of EVs - it is still very much a very small industry compare to ICVs.
Are you suggesting that the figures provided are incorrect?
And who is suggesting the part you felt the need to put in bold is not the case?
The suggestion is that uptake is low

 
dr.bob
1350555.  Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:25 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Are you suggesting that the figures provided are incorrect?


Nope.

barbados wrote:
And who is suggesting the part you felt the need to put in bold is not the case?


Nobody's suggesting it's not the case. Some people seem to be completely missing the point, so I felt the need to re-iterate it to ensure it wasn't missed.

barbados wrote:
The suggestion is that uptake is low


Which is irrelevant to the discussion being had.

 
barbados
1350556.  Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:36 am Reply with quote

In what way is the low uptake of EVs not relevant in a conversation we are currently having about the low uptake of EVs compared to ICVs?

 
CB27
1350569.  Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:13 am Reply with quote

To claim that we cannot replace ICVs with EVs because of current uptake ignores the very same issues ICVs had for several decades before they started replacing other types of transport.

Early cars also had short distances that EVs have, they were expensive, and there weren't as many gas stations as there would be in later years, not to mention that roads weren't exactly geared up for motor vehicles.

It took huge investment in infrastructure from both governments and industries to make these things available, it took legislation, and changing people's expectations of what transport should look and feel like.

Similarly, so much investment and legislation can be introduced to makes EV uptake explode in the same way the ICVs did in the 1920s (decades after they were first introduced).

The main difference between now and then is that the ICV industry, and the oil industry it relies on have a huge amount of money that can be thrown at lobby groups and political funding to create delays, something the horse and buggy industry didn't really have 120 years ago.

 
barbados
1350570.  Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:16 am Reply with quote

No one is suggesting we can not replace ICVs with EVs. The suggestion is we aren't currently replacing them.

 
CB27
1350574.  Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:33 am Reply with quote

Sorry, I missed out the word "quickly", I meant about increasing uptake.

People think that the rules about supply and demand mean that if demand is low then there's no need to supply in larger numbers, but when I had my retail business and I wanted to push something that I needed to either get rid of or was more profitable, it wasn't just about marketing it to make it more desirable, sometimes the simple act of removing some competing lines, or increasing their price meant that the product I wanted to sell suddenly took off.

 
barbados
1350600.  Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:58 pm Reply with quote

The trouble with that approach for pushing EVs over ICVs is that is isn't as simple as just removing the competing line becuase you also need to increase the infrastructre. IT would be a bit like removing candles to increase the sale of light bulbs without electricity being available.

I don't doubt there is a future, but at the moment that take up is small - That is the cold hard truth of it. How to get past that? who know - but to do it the car industry needs to make the option more attractive to those buying a new car. They need to make that additional outlay worthwhile. The government might need to intervene somewhere, but that will just be to improve the infrastructure - the reduction in cost needs to come from the manufacturer. Are they willing to drop the price of the Leaf (for example) to be closer to that of the Micra? (which is about as close to a petrol equivalent) Who knows.

 
PDR
1350601.  Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:43 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
but to do it the car industry needs to make the option more attractive to those buying a new car. They need to make that additional outlay worthwhile. The government might need to intervene somewhere, but that will just be to improve the infrastructure - the reduction in cost needs to come from the manufacturer. Are they willing to drop the price of the Leaf (for example) to be closer to that of the Micra? (which is about as close to a petrol equivalent) Who knows.


As there isn't much scope for cost savings in design & manufacture of the electric cars the more likely solution would be to out a £10,000 levy on the ICE cars to make them *less* attractive (as CB alluded to above).

I'm a little more concerned about where the raw materials are going to come from because EVs necessarily use some that aren't exactly abundant.

PDR

 
CB27
1350630.  Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:10 am Reply with quote

I remember reading once about how steam powered vehicles were equally appealing in the early days of cars, but that various Governments passed legislations making them impossibly expensive, thereby forcing people to choose ICE cars, and steam powered vehicles were forgotten.

 
dr.bob
1350646.  Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:27 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
In what way is the low uptake of EVs not relevant in a conversation we are currently having about the low uptake of EVs compared to ICVs?


WE are not currently having a conversation about the low uptake of EVs compared to ICVs.

I was having a conversation with crissdee about whether EVs would ever, at some point in the future, cease to be marginal. Then you stomped in with your size 14s and derailed an interesting conversation with pointless diversions.

Again.

barbados wrote:
No one is suggesting we can not replace ICVs with EVs. The suggestion is we aren't currently replacing them.


That's your suggestion, and it has precisely three-eighths of fuck all to do with what criss and I were discussing.

barbados wrote:
I don't doubt there is a future, but at the moment that take up is small - That is the cold hard truth of it. How to get past that? who know


Norway might know. Have you considered asking them?

barbados wrote:
The government might need to intervene somewhere, but that will just be to improve the infrastructure - the reduction in cost needs to come from the manufacturer.


This is clearly untrue. Governments can, of course, improve the cost of an EV relative to an ICE vehicle if they so choose.

 
barbados
1350649.  Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:47 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
barbados wrote:
In what way is the low uptake of EVs not relevant in a conversation we are currently having about the low uptake of EVs compared to ICVs?


WE are not currently having a conversation about the low uptake of EVs compared to ICVs.

I was having a conversation with crissdee about whether EVs would ever, at some point in the future, cease to be marginal. Then you stomped in with your size 14s and derailed an interesting conversation with pointless diversions.

Again.

barbados wrote:
No one is suggesting we can not replace ICVs with EVs. The suggestion is we aren't currently replacing them.


That's your suggestion, and it has precisely three-eighths of fuck all to do with what criss and I were discussing.

barbados wrote:
I don't doubt there is a future, but at the moment that take up is small - That is the cold hard truth of it. How to get past that? who know


Norway might know. Have you considered asking them?

barbados wrote:
The government might need to intervene somewhere, but that will just be to improve the infrastructure - the reduction in cost needs to come from the manufacturer.


This is clearly untrue. Governments can, of course, improve the cost of an EV relative to an ICE vehicle if they so choose.

Many apologies, I wasn’t aware you were having a fucking private conversation on a public forum how bloody irresponsible of me.

Perhaps to avoid confusion in the future you might try to use the “private message” functionality. I appreciate that the code that this forum has been tailored to suit this particular site rendering updates very difficult but that particular function has been available since v1.0.0 so I’m pretty sure it is included here (hold that I’ve just checked, you can find your way to it in the “user tools” area on the left hand side of the screen
HTH

 
PDR
1350652.  Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:28 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
I remember reading once about how steam powered vehicles were equally appealing in the early days of cars, but that various Governments passed legislations making them impossibly expensive, thereby forcing people to choose ICE cars, and steam powered vehicles were forgotten.


Well that book seems to have come up with and interesting way of spinning it!

The issue with steam road vehicles is a safety one. Steam-powered systems have a lot of energy stored as hot, high pressure ("superheated", to use the technical term) steam. Containing this steam such that doesn't escape and kill people in the event of a crash, but is still light enough to be suitable is a non-trivial problem. That's why "boilermaker" is a specific craft trade with a long apprenticeship. It was allowed for railway locomotives because they run on separate tracks and the chances of an actual collision are low. But when they DO have a collision the relese of energy is huge and deaths happen.

As cars became regulated the various authorities recognised that steam boilers on the public road would need some stringent safety standards - probably the first crashworthiness regulations. Unfortunately when constructed to meet these regulations the boilers because too large and heavy to be practicable in road vehicles, and that's what killed them.

Interestingly one of those who "blew the whistle" was Howard Hughes. One of his companies was heavily into steam car development, and he got involved in some technical discussions. In the course of those discussions the whole boiler-safety thing leaped out at him, so he shut down his project and approached the Californian legislature with some draft regulations.

PDR

 

Page 19 of 21
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group