What's the problem with electric cars?

[Forg]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

What I meant was the difference between generation that creates no emissions (such as solar or wind, although carbon is released constructing them) to those which do create emissions such as burning biomass wood pellets which we do at several thermal power stations in the UK, instead of coal. These create the usual emissions associated with combustion but we say that's okay because we grew the wood specifically for that purpose and absorbed a lot of carbon during that process. That is what I meant by taking from peter, to pay paul (an expression originally used by another member but I think wholly appropriate).

It's entirely an "off setting" process with varying results, to create certain biomass fuels, often considerable energy is used...

It's better than digging very old stuff out of the ground, but it's not entirely green.

Well it creates other types of pollution, but it doesn't contribute to climate change per se. It doesn't add any more CO2 into the air than it took out.

If the only pollution it created was that localised stuff, it's probably "greener" than using current battery tech even if the grid were 100% powered from windmills & waves & solars as well as these pellets!

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Forg

Well it creates other types of pollution, but it doesn't contribute to climate change per se. It doesn't add any more CO2 into the air than it took out.

If the only pollution it created was that localised stuff, it's probably "greener" than using current battery tech even if the grid were 100% powered from windmills & waves & solars as well as these pellets!

I wouldn't agree that it doesn't "contribute", firstly a lot of it is made abroad and in lesser regulated parts of the world, and secondly some of it involves a lot of energy to make it and transport it, which is hard to measure.

But yes, likely less impact than fossil fuels and some other so called "green" options.

[Whippy]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

I wouldn't agree that it doesn't "contribute", firstly a lot of it is made abroad and in lesser regulated parts of the world, and secondly some of it involves a lot of energy to make it and transport it, which is hard to measure.

But yes, likely less impact than fossil fuels and some other so called "green" options.

And I suspect at least some of it comes from non sustainable sources thus adding to deforestation much as the crops grown to turn into ethanol is on areas of previously forested land.

What people can't seem to accept is that there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Forg]

Well even if it DID come from fully sustainable sources, as soon as they're carting it around using fuel for transport that's not sustainable, there it goes ... I mean if they were making it from plantation forest on land which was re-used for plantation forest next time 'round and then manufacturing it using some of the energy from the last batch of it (or solars/winds/waterfalls/etc) and then transporting it in boats which ran on it ... then there's a solid argument for it.

Transport is a pretty filthy business - like cruise liners.

[baggy798]

Wood pellets emit 10% to 15% more CO₂ than coal, not including supplying. UK uses the most wood pellets. Oopsie!

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by baggy798

Wood pellets emit 10% to 15% more CO₂ than coal, not including supplying. UK uses the most wood pellets. Oopsie!

..........but not so much of the other crap that coal emits that causes acid rain etc.

[Forg]

Originally Posted by baggy798

Wood pellets emit 10% to 15% more CO₂ than coal, not including supplying. UK uses the most wood pellets. Oopsie!

... which of course doesn't matter from a climate-change POV if the process of making them & transporting them to where they're used involves only renewables.

And they're probably made out of Amazon forest wood using diseasal logging equipment & then carted all that distance by diseasal no-emissions-gear boats ...

[foggyjames]

Originally Posted by Kev0607

How can it have passed safety legislation and be given a 1 star rating? Euro ncap is strict, but surely that’s a good thing?

It's worth bearing in mind that the Euro NCAP thresholds have repeatedly moved. I wouldn't put good money on a first generation S/V40 beating the Spring, for example, and possibly not even a mk2 V40. An older car may have scored well in-period, but it probably wouldn't against today's criteria.

As a specific example, the Fiat Grande Punto dropped from 5-stars to zero(!) when re-tested under newer criteria (which have probably been revised again at least once in the meantime!).

There are still people who claim that the Fifth Gear 940 vs Modus test was rigged, when it fairly plainly wasn't.

cheers

James

[Whippy]

As Einstein said, "It's all relative".

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by foggyjames

It's worth bearing in mind that the Euro NCAP thresholds have repeatedly moved. I wouldn't put good money on a first generation S/V40 beating the Spring, for example, and possibly not even a mk2 V40. An older car may have scored well in-period, but it probably wouldn't against today's criteria.

As a specific example, the Fiat Grande Punto dropped from 5-stars to zero(!) when re-tested under newer criteria (which have probably been revised again at least once in the meantime!).

There are still people who claim that the Fifth Gear 940 vs Modus test was rigged, when it fairly plainly wasn't.

cheers

James

If you read the blurb, one of the main reasons the Dacia Spring scored so badly was the lack of safety software/tech like lane departure warning etc.