The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

In which case some policies to reduce car use can be argued to be all stick and no carrot.

I tend more towards policies that encourage choice. Such as smaller cars, more efficient cars, electric cars. But not those that artificially encourage people to dispose of cars and get new ones. The most environmentally friendly thing you can still do while owning a car is to use the one you already have (broadly speaking).

Embodied carbon in a typical car is a bit more than one year's in-use emissions and about three quarters of that is in the steel bodywork, which is the easiest bit to recycle. All very rough figures and there is quite a bit of variation between a small hatchback and a large 4x4 or SUV, but enough to work out that in use emissions eclipse embodied carbon pretty quickly. So inducements to just use cars less are fairly clearly worthwhile.

The ULEZ is aimed at tackling a different problem - particulates and NOx emissions.

Maximum emissions to avoid the charge are

Diesel
HC + NOx: 0.17g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km
PM: 0.005g/km
PN [#/km]: 6.0x10 ^11/km

Petrol
CO: 1.0g/km
THC: 0.10g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km

You can see that the earlier Euro 4 standard for petrol has the same NOx levels as the later Euro 6 Diesel standard, which also brought in the requirement for particulate filtration.

The preceding Euro 5 diesel standard allowed NOx emissions of up to 0.18g/km. More than double the compliant standard.

Note also the standards are per km, so Stevo's upgrade to a larger but cleaner engine is exactly the intended result. (Thanks Stevo; it worked!). If it also persuades some people to keep their non-compliant car but drive it into town less often, that's also a good thing.

Cars and vans are certainly not the only source of NOx and particulates and the next obvious target is wood burners, but that's outside this thread

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

In which case some policies to reduce car use can be argued to be all stick and no carrot.

I tend more towards policies that encourage choice. Such as smaller cars, more efficient cars, electric cars. But not those that artificially encourage people to dispose of cars and get new ones. The most environmentally friendly thing you can still do while owning a car is to use the one you already have (broadly speaking).

Embodied carbon in a typical car is a bit more than one year's in-use emissions and about three quarters of that is in the steel bodywork, which is the easiest bit to recycle. All very rough figures and there is quite a bit of variation between a small hatchback and a large 4x4 or SUV, but enough to work out that in use emissions eclipse embodied carbon pretty quickly. So inducements to just use cars less are fairly clearly worthwhile.

The ULEZ is aimed at tackling a different problem - particulates and NOx emissions.

Maximum emissions to avoid the charge are

Diesel
HC + NOx: 0.17g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km
PM: 0.005g/km
PN [#/km]: 6.0x10 ^11/km

Petrol
CO: 1.0g/km
THC: 0.10g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km

You can see that the earlier Euro 4 standard for petrol has the same NOx levels as the later Euro 6 Diesel standard, which also brought in the requirement for particulate filtration.

The preceding Euro 5 diesel standard allowed NOx emissions of up to 0.18g/km. More than double the compliant standard.

Note also the standards are per km, so Stevo's upgrade to a larger but cleaner engine is exactly the intended result. (Thanks Stevo; it worked!). If it also persuades some people to keep their non-compliant car but drive it into town less often, that's also a good thing.

Cars and vans are certainly not the only source of NOx and particulates and the next obvious target is wood burners, but that's outside this thread

It did in terms of accelerating my car upgrade - but my financial circumstances gave me the ability to do that. That is not the case for many affected by the ULEZ expansion.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

If you look at how quickly the car changed travel, you should be able to see how quickly other travel can come.

rjsterry

Hence TfL offering a grant to upgrade. It's not perfect but I'm sure people don't want larger handouts and there has been a lot of time to save up. I'm sure the wood burner salesmen will protest the inevitable restrictions then ban just as coalmen were made redundant by the Clean Air Act and developers have lobbied against the extra costs of not polluting rivers. There's always someone with a sob story about why they should be excused from meeting the same standards as everyone else.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Hence TfL offering a grant to upgrade. It's not perfect but I'm sure people don't want larger handouts and there has been a lot of time to save up. I'm sure the wood burner salesmen will protest the inevitable restrictions then ban just as coalmen were made redundant by the Clean Air Act and developers have lobbied against the extra costs of not polluting rivers. There's always someone with a sob story about why they should be excused from meeting the same standards as everyone else.

Same arguments were used when child labour was banned from factories back in the day.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

In which case some policies to reduce car use can be argued to be all stick and no carrot.

I tend more towards policies that encourage choice. Such as smaller cars, more efficient cars, electric cars. But not those that artificially encourage people to dispose of cars and get new ones. The most environmentally friendly thing you can still do while owning a car is to use the one you already have (broadly speaking).

Embodied carbon in a typical car is a bit more than one year's in-use emissions and about three quarters of that is in the steel bodywork, which is the easiest bit to recycle. All very rough figures and there is quite a bit of variation between a small hatchback and a large 4x4 or SUV, but enough to work out that in use emissions eclipse embodied carbon pretty quickly. So inducements to just use cars less are fairly clearly worthwhile.

The ULEZ is aimed at tackling a different problem - particulates and NOx emissions.

Maximum emissions to avoid the charge are

Diesel
HC + NOx: 0.17g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km
PM: 0.005g/km
PN [#/km]: 6.0x10 ^11/km

Petrol
CO: 1.0g/km
THC: 0.10g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km

You can see that the earlier Euro 4 standard for petrol has the same NOx levels as the later Euro 6 Diesel standard, which also brought in the requirement for particulate filtration.

The preceding Euro 5 diesel standard allowed NOx emissions of up to 0.18g/km. More than double the compliant standard.

Note also the standards are per km, so Stevo's upgrade to a larger but cleaner engine is exactly the intended result. (Thanks Stevo; it worked!). If it also persuades some people to keep their non-compliant car but drive it into town less often, that's also a good thing.

Cars and vans are certainly not the only source of NOx and particulates and the next obvious target is wood burners, but that's outside this thread

Mmm. Those aren't the thresholds for avoiding the charge, those are the thresholds that car manufactured at a certain time had to meet. The actual emissions of those vehicles don't matter, regardless of whether they are above or below the threshold in either real world or lab testing conditions.

Your numbers for the crossover of EV vs ICU vehicle carbon footprint are a bit off as well. Probably taken from an EV company's website.

Manufacture alone of an EV is about 10 tons of CO2. That's roughly 7 years' worth of CO2 generation of an average UK vehicle. EVs aren't carbon free to drive at the moment due to our energy mix - seems to be about 1/3 per mile of ICU cars' average? So I think the crossover is more like 10 years in reality, much longer for some vehicles, much shorter for others.

The apocryphal 1.0L 2010 Polo didn't have the opportunity to be tested at Euro 6, but probably emits less than the ULEZ thresholds. It also probably will be more carbon efficient to keep on the road for at least a decade.

kingstongraham

You can't provide a realistic alternative in towns and cities without either knocking a load of stuff down, or restricting the space available to cars, and their speed.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

In which case some policies to reduce car use can be argued to be all stick and no carrot.

I tend more towards policies that encourage choice. Such as smaller cars, more efficient cars, electric cars. But not those that artificially encourage people to dispose of cars and get new ones. The most environmentally friendly thing you can still do while owning a car is to use the one you already have (broadly speaking).

Embodied carbon in a typical car is a bit more than one year's in-use emissions and about three quarters of that is in the steel bodywork, which is the easiest bit to recycle. All very rough figures and there is quite a bit of variation between a small hatchback and a large 4x4 or SUV, but enough to work out that in use emissions eclipse embodied carbon pretty quickly. So inducements to just use cars less are fairly clearly worthwhile.

The ULEZ is aimed at tackling a different problem - particulates and NOx emissions.

Maximum emissions to avoid the charge are

Diesel
HC + NOx: 0.17g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km
PM: 0.005g/km
PN [#/km]: 6.0x10 ^11/km

Petrol
CO: 1.0g/km
THC: 0.10g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km

You can see that the earlier Euro 4 standard for petrol has the same NOx levels as the later Euro 6 Diesel standard, which also brought in the requirement for particulate filtration.

The preceding Euro 5 diesel standard allowed NOx emissions of up to 0.18g/km. More than double the compliant standard.

Note also the standards are per km, so Stevo's upgrade to a larger but cleaner engine is exactly the intended result. (Thanks Stevo; it worked!). If it also persuades some people to keep their non-compliant car but drive it into town less often, that's also a good thing.

Cars and vans are certainly not the only source of NOx and particulates and the next obvious target is wood burners, but that's outside this thread

Mmm. Those aren't the thresholds for avoiding the charge, those are the thresholds that car manufactured at a certain time had to meet. The actual emissions of those vehicles don't matter, regardless of whether they are above or below the threshold in either real world or lab testing conditions.

Your numbers for the crossover of EV vs ICU vehicle carbon footprint are a bit off as well. Probably taken from an EV company's website.

Manufacture alone of an EV is about 10 tons of CO2. That's roughly 7 years' worth of CO2 generation of an average UK vehicle. EVs aren't carbon free to drive at the moment due to our energy mix - seems to be about 1/3 per mile of ICU cars' average? So I think the crossover is more like 10 years in reality, much longer for some vehicles, much shorter for others.

The apocryphal 1.0L 2010 Polo didn't have the opportunity to be tested at Euro 6, but probably emits less than the ULEZ thresholds. It also probably will be more carbon efficient to keep on the road for at least a decade.

I wasn't talking about EVs. They're useful for reducing city centre pollution but not as an overall carbon emissions strategy. My point was that in use emissions for the ICE majority fairly quickly eclipse embodied carbon. That means that replacement with a lower emitting vehicle is not something to just dismiss, but better still is to just use them less.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

You can't provide a realistic alternative in towns and cities without either knocking a load of stuff down, or restricting the space available to cars, and their speed.

How do you think we got roads and rail to begin with?

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

You can't provide a realistic alternative in towns and cities without either knocking a load of stuff down, or restricting the space available to cars, and their speed.

How do you think we got roads and rail to begin with?

Roads are entirely natural features.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

If you look at how quickly the car changed travel, you should be able to see how quickly other travel can come.

All I need is something that can take me from where I am now to where I want to go at a time of my choosing and within reason accommodate whatever I want to take (such a boot full of stuff). Plus no extra charges from up to 4 fellow passengers and I'm allowed to drive if I want. Sort that and I'll sign up.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

If you look at how quickly the car changed travel, you should be able to see how quickly other travel can come.

All I need is something that can take me from where I am now to where I want to go at a time of my choosing and within reason accommodate whatever I want to take (such a boot full of stuff). Plus no extra charges from up to 4 fellow passengers and I'm allowed to drive if I want. Sort that and I'll sign up.

Where shall I deliver your carriage and horses?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

If you look at how quickly the car changed travel, you should be able to see how quickly other travel can come.

All I need is something that can take me from where I am now to where I want to go at a time of my choosing and within reason accommodate whatever I want to take (such a boot full of stuff). Plus no extra charges from up to 4 fellow passengers and I'm allowed to drive if I want. Sort that and I'll sign up.

I like the no "extra" charges bit - gives the opportunity for charging for any inconvenience the car use places on other people. Also no mention of being able to get there at any particular speed, which is good.

On the DLR, you can sit at the front and pretend to drive - would that help with the "allowed to drive" bit? You could bring a special hat.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

If you look at how quickly the car changed travel, you should be able to see how quickly other travel can come.

All I need is something that can take me from where I am now to where I want to go at a time of my choosing and within reason accommodate whatever I want to take (such a boot full of stuff). Plus no extra charges from up to 4 fellow passengers and I'm allowed to drive if I want. Sort that and I'll sign up.

I like the no "extra" charges bit - gives the opportunity for charging for any inconvenience the car use places on other people. Also no mention of being able to get there at any particular speed, which is good.

On the DLR, you can sit at the front and pretend to drive - would that help with the "allowed to drive" bit? You could bring a special hat.

Whatever. I feel I have explained why Rick's idea is the proverbial 'pie in the sky'.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

If you look at how quickly the car changed travel, you should be able to see how quickly other travel can come.

All I need is something that can take me from where I am now to where I want to go at a time of my choosing and within reason accommodate whatever I want to take (such a boot full of stuff). Plus no extra charges from up to 4 fellow passengers and I'm allowed to drive if I want. Sort that and I'll sign up.

Where shall I deliver your carriage and horses?

Should have added 'and doesn't leave piles of shyte on the road' to my criteria list

First.Aspect

I think more people could get around on scooters, rather than a vehicle that has 4 unused seats and an unused storage compartment most of the time. Seems not to be part of the UK culture though for some reason.

Jezyboy

First.Aspect said:

I think more people could get around on scooters, rather than a vehicle that has 4 unused seats and an unused storage compartment most of the time. Seems not to be part of the UK culture though for some reason.

Shitty weather.

davebradswmb

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

If you look at how quickly the car changed travel, you should be able to see how quickly other travel can come.

All I need is something that can take me from where I am now to where I want to go at a time of my choosing and within reason accommodate whatever I want to take (such a boot full of stuff). Plus no extra charges from up to 4 fellow passengers and I'm allowed to drive if I want. Sort that and I'll sign up.

I like the no "extra" charges bit - gives the opportunity for charging for any inconvenience the car use places on other people. Also no mention of being able to get there at any particular speed, which is good.

On the DLR, you can sit at the front and pretend to drive - would that help with the "allowed to drive" bit? You could bring a special hat.

Whatever. I feel I have explained why Rick's idea is the proverbial 'pie in the sky'.

Sadly I think that Rick (and I) are in a tiny minority, there are far more people that agree with you. Why should you change the way you live your life for something as ephemeral as saving the planet? Which is why the earth will not be habitable soon, I estimate about 100 - 200 years. We'll all be dead, so why should we care?

Stevo_666

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

If you look at how quickly the car changed travel, you should be able to see how quickly other travel can come.

All I need is something that can take me from where I am now to where I want to go at a time of my choosing and within reason accommodate whatever I want to take (such a boot full of stuff). Plus no extra charges from up to 4 fellow passengers and I'm allowed to drive if I want. Sort that and I'll sign up.

I like the no "extra" charges bit - gives the opportunity for charging for any inconvenience the car use places on other people. Also no mention of being able to get there at any particular speed, which is good.

On the DLR, you can sit at the front and pretend to drive - would that help with the "allowed to drive" bit? You could bring a special hat.

Whatever. I feel I have explained why Rick's idea is the proverbial 'pie in the sky'.

Sadly I think that Rick (and I) are in a tiny minority, there are far more people that agree with you. Why should you change the way you live your life for something as ephemeral as saving the planet? Which is why the earth will not be habitable soon, I estimate about 100 - 200 years. We'll all be dead, so why should we care?

If you assume that me getting on a bus from time to time will save the planet then you're more of an optimist than me.

First.Aspect

Jezyboy said:

First.Aspect said:

I think more people could get around on scooters, rather than a vehicle that has 4 unused seats and an unused storage compartment most of the time. Seems not to be part of the UK culture though for some reason.

Shitty weather.

Possibly but that doesn't explain all of it. Climate in London these days is pretty damn hot and dry.

pblakeney

Quick poll highlighted in another thread but I don't want a cross threading tangent.
How many on here are directly affected and will have to pay ULEZ on a regular basis?

rick_chasey

Nope. On the two occasions a year I visit my sister by car I'd be in a compliant car anyway.

davebradswmb

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Meh. The point is that it's naive to think you can uninvent the car. Or reengineer a country to avoid the need or attraction of having one.

I think this is is the key point which explain why Ricks fantasy transport world will not happen in our lifetimes. The changes required are so huge and so expensive for something that most people don't want to do that it's a non-runner.

Add to that the obvious limitations of any public transport system and cars are here to stay.

If you look at how quickly the car changed travel, you should be able to see how quickly other travel can come.

All I need is something that can take me from where I am now to where I want to go at a time of my choosing and within reason accommodate whatever I want to take (such a boot full of stuff). Plus no extra charges from up to 4 fellow passengers and I'm allowed to drive if I want. Sort that and I'll sign up.

I like the no "extra" charges bit - gives the opportunity for charging for any inconvenience the car use places on other people. Also no mention of being able to get there at any particular speed, which is good.

On the DLR, you can sit at the front and pretend to drive - would that help with the "allowed to drive" bit? You could bring a special hat.

Whatever. I feel I have explained why Rick's idea is the proverbial 'pie in the sky'.

Sadly I think that Rick (and I) are in a tiny minority, there are far more people that agree with you. Why should you change the way you live your life for something as ephemeral as saving the planet? Which is why the earth will not be habitable soon, I estimate about 100 - 200 years. We'll all be dead, so why should we care?

If you assume that me getting on a bus from time to time will save the planet then you're more of an optimist than me.

In a nutshell, this is why this planet is finished

First.Aspect

Nope. Two cars that are compliant across the whole country as far as I can tell.

Not going to be a particularly representative sample on here though.

Dorset_Boy

One car compliant, one not. The one that is not is the one that would be used to get to the airport if off on a cycling holiday with the bike as the other won't fit bike box(es) plus luggage plus humans.
For visiting friends inside the ULEZ we would take the compliant one.

Jezyboy

Our household has a modern (well not particularly modern) diesel that is compliant, an ancient (historic) car that's seemingly exempt, and we've just scraped an exceptionally rusty petrol car that would have been compliant.

12.50 or even 25 quid is totally lost in the noise of any travel I'm likely to do involving Heathrow tbh.

davebradswmb

No, 2 cars in our family, one 12 years old and the other 14 years old. The car I gave up a couple of years ago is also compliant despite being 24 years old.

The reason for this might have something to do with the fact that I never bought into the great diesel con and refused to have one despite the higher running costs. It was never that difficult to work out that we were being lied to, why couldn't the politicians see it?

Pross

davebradswmb said:

No, 2 cars in our family, one 12 years old and the other 14 years old. The car I gave up a couple of years ago is also compliant despite being 24 years old.

The reason for this might have something to do with the fact that I never bought into the great diesel con and refused to have one despite the higher running costs. It was never that difficult to work out that we were being lied to, why couldn't the politicians see it?

Lied to in what way? Diesel had significantly lower CO2 emissions (even allowing for the 'manipulation' of testing that was going on) which was better for the global warming issue they were looking to address. Unfortunately air pollution wasn't considered in the equation and it's an example of trying to address one problem making things worse for a different problem.

photonic69

Pross said:

davebradswmb said:

No, 2 cars in our family, one 12 years old and the other 14 years old. The car I gave up a couple of years ago is also compliant despite being 24 years old.

The reason for this might have something to do with the fact that I never bought into the great diesel con and refused to have one despite the higher running costs. It was never that difficult to work out that we were being lied to, why couldn't the politicians see it?

Lied to in what way? Diesel had significantly lower CO2 emissions (even allowing for the 'manipulation' of testing that was going on) which was better for the global warming issue they were looking to address. Unfortunately air pollution wasn't considered in the equation and it's an example of trying to address one problem making things worse for a different problem.

Diesel as a fuel is far better in every aspect as it has the highest energy density of all fuels i.e. you need less of it to go further so it is the most economical. It also has lower processing costs than other fuels adn is easier to transport. Diesel engines in their current form are the cleanest in terms of Greenhouse CO2 emissions. It's just a shame that they produce NOx.