Are EVs the way forward?

[Kind of Blue]

That will solve the future grandkids problem then and go someway towards helping with the overall situation.

There are too many of us and due to medical advancements, we are living longer than is necessary. Animals still have the same lifespans that they've had since time began, but in probably the last 50 years, we've gone from an average of three score and ten, to people being expected to last well into there 80's. It was my Mothers (88) funeral last week, and I noticed this when looking around the churchyard.

Look at how nature thrived during covid lockdowns. That may have been natures way at thinning us out, but oh no, we had to fight against it. Medical intervention again.

Some can say that they are doing their bit by driving and EV, but where is their old vehicle? They're not old bangers being scrapped after been traded in, they are generally 2-3 year old vehicles that will go on for another 20 years or more, whereas this years new EV is said to have a service life of approximately 10 years. It doesn't add up.

I know to most my views are all bollocks. After all this note under my avatar sums me up.

I am very sorry to hear about you loss dubber36, please accept my condolences.



I was just thinking very much the same about length of modern human life and COVID nature did well here under the lock down I am very devoted to the wildlife on my holding, alas the badgers on here badgers have been wiped out by local people. Foxes do not normally last very long hunting is rife and uncontrolled the use of snares still goes on poison also. I have lost many trees to Ash Die Back. nature does renew but it takes a little time.

 

[CJW]

Saying that this level of global warming is just a natural planetary cycle is to go against overwhelming evidence collected by highly trusted organisations such as NASA and the United Nations. It goes against the combined opinions of 97% of climate scientists.

The rate of change cannot be explained by natural phenomena alone.

If anyone wants to post links to organisations that claim different, then go for it - let’s discuss.

Even Konstantin Kisin doesn’t claim climate change isn’t real.

CalTech - they operate NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and orbital earth monitoring:

What Is the Evidence for Human-Caused Climate Change?

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Multiple studies show that 97 percent or more of climate scientists agree.

scienceexchange.caltech.edu

 

[Lubrown]

there has been climate change or warming since the peaks of the last ice age. Every now and then the heating process speeds up and then slows down again but this cyclic warming rate is still bound to continue regardless unless something very dramatic happens that is totally beyond our control.

Two points to this - whenever the average global temperature has risen or sunk drastically there have been serious, dire (extinction level) events. Yes, animals and plants have bounced back and adapted but over thousands of years. Humankind is emitting greenhouse gasses at the fastest rate ever - too fast for evolution.

Second - something the oil industry are keen to bury… the effects of climate change from human activity don’t just cause harm to the environment (as if that’s not enough). Air pollution works locally and causes huge amounts of damage to human health. Big oil can no longer viably deny climate damage so are keen to steer the arguments that way and away from the impact on ourselves at a local level. People think simplistically - ‘the environment has been hotter/colder before’ or ‘I can’t make any impact on the global environment as I’m just one person’. We can all easily make change to local air quality and we absolutely should… in this country alone it contributes to tens of thousands of deaths (precipitated by years of very expensive healthcare we all pay towards) each year.

 

[Lubrown]

Well if you start recording the earth’s temperature shortly after a mini ice age what do you think the natural progression of the earths temperature will be?

It’s all relative though isn’t it. Do we need to worry about temperature extremes when humans weren’t around? Whereas now we can see the impact of a warming climate in crop failures, floods, droughts, rising sea levels… all of which affect migration, land mass available to farm, fresh water supplies etc. and the more extreme and more frequent weather patterns cause damage to infrastructure now (dinosaurs didn’t build much before they all died). We can’t change the past either, we can display our impact on it and we can still change the future while understanding what would be best for us and what would be unsustainable.

 

[Lubrown]

Some can say that they are doing their bit by driving and EV, but where is their old vehicle? They're not old bangers being scrapped after been traded in, they are generally 2-3 year old vehicles that will go on for another 20 years or more, whereas this years new EV is said to have a service life of approximately 10 years. It doesn't add up.

This has been debunked.
New EVs last longer than modern petrols in terms of both age and mileage.

Remember mass produced EVs are still fairly new (even though the concept isn’t). As time goes buy since they started selling in big numbers (with sales increasing in the UK year on year) more data comes available allowing better comparison. A study into longevity looked at nearly 300 million MOT test records (for the period 2005 to 2022) and showed battery electric vehicles now achieve an average lifespan of 18.4 years and can travel up to 124,000 miles, surpassing typical petrol vehicles. These figures for EVs are getting better every year too - we can’t say that about ICE.

 

[Sasquatch]

That will solve the future grandkids problem then and go someway towards helping with the overall situation.

There are too many of us and due to medical advancements, we are living longer than is necessary. Animals still have the same lifespans that they've had since time began, but in probably the last 50 years, we've gone from an average of three score and ten, to people being expected to last well into there 80's. It was my Mothers (88) funeral last week, and I noticed this when looking around the churchyard.

Look at how nature thrived during covid lockdowns. That may have been natures way at thinning us out, but oh no, we had to fight against it. Medical intervention again.

Some can say that they are doing their bit by driving and EV, but where is their old vehicle? They're not old bangers being scrapped after been traded in, they are generally 2-3 year old vehicles that will go on for another 20 years or more, whereas this years new EV is said to have a service life of approximately 10 years. It doesn't add up.

I know to most my views are all bollocks. After all this note under my avatar sums me up.

Several points here.

The environmental load of neddlessly replacing an existing car with a new one applies also to ICE vehicles, and you never complained about that before. The problem there is one of consumer buying habits, a growth based economic model, and easily accessible credit, not the vehicles motive power.

Then there is the misguided belief re the lifespan of E vehicles. In UK the average ICE car only has a lifespan of 10.5 years and less than 110k miles. Proportionately speaking very few are going on for another 10 years, never mind another 20, as you state. Next time you're out and about you can see for yourself how few 14 plate and older cars there are.

The only people claiming an E car has the service life of 10 years are the technically illiterate sources such as the Daily Mail. Now they've been around long enough to accumulate sufficient data it has been found the average lifespan of an E car exceeds that of an ICE car in both age and (considerably) in mileage, while requiring less servicing and repair along the way. The idea of a shorter lifespan than ICE cars has long been refuted by reputable sources, although social media doesnits very best to keep the myth alive.

 

[dubber36]

Next time you're out and about you can see for yourself how few 14 plate and older cars there are.

In our household we have a G reg that's done 164k, an S reg on 130k, a 51 reg done 185k, a 62 reg with 154k, another 62 reg with 100k, a 63 reg with 102k, then the newer than 14 reg's, a 64 reg with 153k and a 21 reg with 15k. All of them I would be able to jump in and drive as far as I needed to without a second thought.

If I take a walk up the village, OK there's less than 20 houses, over 50% of the cars are over 10 years old.

If the majority of cars are gone around the 10 year mark, your point about consumers buying habits is spot on. People's ways aren't going to change, so back to my previous post, less people on the planet would cause less of an impact.

 

[Lubrown]

less people on the planet would cause less of an impact

Of course this could be true (although as we see with the top 1% contributing more greenhouse gases per capita than any other group I imagine the select few will still find ways to mess them selves up if they aren’t thoughtful) but we are where we are.
And while we are, as a race, really quite destructive, we can also be quite intelligent. We know what we’re doing wrong and we know what we need to change.
Giving up because ‘there are too many of us’ or ‘but what about China’ or ‘this guy on social media just (wrongly) said EVs don’t last long and I’m going to parrot that because I can’t face change’ seems a cop out. Sure, I’m not running out to shop either of my 2014 vehicles in just yet (despite every mechanic sighing and saying you might have to think about the cost of this repair and the age of your car) because now they’re built I want to make them last, but equally that doesn’t mean I’m going to make stuff up or regurgitate disproven things just because I’m not ready for change. In my view we seem to be moving at a fairly good pace. People are buying EVs on their normal purchasing cycle. Those questioned actually want low emission zones - despite the press highlighting a vocal minority. A lot of people realise we need to change and, when ready and able, are doing so.
This thread is about EVs so I won’t go into the myriad ways we can reduce our own carbon footprint (cause someone needs no excuse to moderate me, lol) but EVs are one tool in the kit that help reduce impact on our health, environment and wallets - and that all seems good stuff in the long run.

 

[ginkster]

There is a good article in this weeks Autocar covering EV longevity and age of cars on the road. EVs now outstrip ICE cars with a lifespan of 18.4 years vs 17 for ICE and 124k miles vs 123k for ICE. Things will improve rapidly as the newer LFP batteries last even longer. Age is the key factor for the batteries rather than mileage.

The average age of cars in the UK is 9.5 years old, up from 8 in 2019. Nearly a third (31.7%) are more than 12 years old.

Also interesting is that components of an old EV battery can be recycled with no loss of performance in the new battery. It’s just there isn’t much capacity in the UK for this yet, partly because there are so few batteries to be recycled as the originals are still in their 14 year old Leafs, Zoes and i3s!

 

[Graham Jones]

I can't stop laughing...it must be a joke...."highly trusted organizations...United Nations" ??????

 

[Novakart]

Climate doom is the hoax -the sun controls the climate—-

The fear mongering only serves to keep you shackled to them chains ..

 

[Graham Jones]

I can't stop laughing...it must be a joke...."highly trusted organizations...United Nations" ??????

Climate doom is the hoax -the sun controls the climate—-

The fear mongering only serves to keep you shackled to them chains ..
View attachment 289874View attachment 289875

Unfortunately, there are still many people with selective amnesia..... “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

 

[Sasquatch]

I can't stop laughing...it must be a joke...."highly trusted organizations...United Nations" ??????

Indeed. It's rare that those words appear in the same sentence.

Nevertheless, in this instance they're being guided by science rather than their own inate contradictory ineptitude.

Perhaps three polls asking whether anthropomorphic climate change is real? One for those of us with STEM degrees, one for those without, and one for those that read newspapers with the word "Daily" prefixing the name. The results would doubtless be interesting.

 

[Graham Jones]

Indeed. It's rare that those words appear in the same sentence.

Nevertheless, in this instance they're being guided by science rather than their own inate contradictory ineptitude.

Perhaps three polls asking whether anthropomorphic climate change is real? One for those of us with STEM degrees, one for those without, and one for those that read newspapers with the word "Daily" prefixing the name. The results would doubtless be interesting.

I think add a 4th....for those with common sense....now that would be interesting.. wouldn't it..

 

[CJW]

I can't stop laughing...it must be a joke...."highly trusted organizations...United Nations" ??????

Unfortunately, there are still many people with selective amnesia..... “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

Where are the links that say different? Or are you just going to try to discredit the UN?

 

[CJW]

I can't stop laughing...it must be a joke...."highly trusted organizations...United Nations" ??????

Where are the links that say different.

 

[Sasquatch]

Or are you just going to try to discredit the UN?

To he fair, that isn't difficult.

 

[Graham Jones]

Where are the links that say different? Or are you just going to try to discredit the UN?

I don't have to try to discredit the UN.....they do that themselves..far better than I could ever do...

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

Indeed. It's rare that those words appear in the same sentence.

Nevertheless, in this instance they're being guided by science rather than their own inate contradictory ineptitude.

Perhaps three polls asking whether anthropomorphic climate change is real? One for those of us with STEM degrees, one for those without, and one for those that read newspapers with the word "Daily" prefixing the name. The results would doubtless be interesting.

Because of course everyone without a STEM degree is a total idiot and not capable of seeing what’s happening around them.

 

[Sasquatch]

Because of course everyone without a STEM degree is a total idiot and not capable of seeing what’s happening around them.

I think thats a case of putting words in someone elses mouth. My post was openly speculatory. The word "everyone" was not used or even implied.

Nedertheless, not everyone for sure. The majority have sufficiently developed analytical skills so sort the wheel from the chaff o that one.

Sadly though the ranks of unbelievers, deniers, or plain old fashioned wackos (delete as appropriate) are undoubtedly bolstered by a proprotionately far higher number of the scientific illiterati.

After all, it would be specious to contend that a person who is uneducated in science is likely to have a greater scientific understanding than someone who is thus trained. It may be possible, I certainly wouldn't say never, but that would undoubtedly be the exception.

Consider this; the climate change denying Daily Mail has very healthy circulation figures, and for the most part it isn't Nobel prize winning climatologists, planetologists and geophysists reading it. They're probably reading the salacious gossip in The Star, particularly now there are no more boobs in The Sun.