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

rick_chasey

Rowan Atkinson makes a good case for the problems with electric cars:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Rowan Atkinson makes a good case for the problems with electric cars:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

It doesn't do the critical analysis of emissions during production compared to those when in use.

For example, I think a wind turbine produces enough energy in one year to repay its production debt.

rick_chasey

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

morstar

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

wavefront

It’s a sound bite article but none the less is exactly where I’m at with power train development etc. Electric is a just a stop gap. I’ve 3 cars all secondhand, each has specific uses. But the newest is over 10years old, the oldest 28. Considering the energy spent making them, I certainly believe in prolonging their lifespan as much as possible. I guess someone has to, but really don’t understand why you’d buy a brand new car.

On a separate note - why has diesel just plummeted in price? It’s now 7p litre cheaper than petrol?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

Just seems to be the usual argument against electric cars. I think research has shown that electric cars have lower whole life emissions even if the electricity comes entirely from burning gas.

And whilst I've argued in favour of hydrogen many times, it is a lot less efficient.

Pross

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

pblakeney

wavefront said:

It’s a sound bite article but none the less is exactly where I’m at with power train development etc. Electric is a just a stop gap. I’ve 3 cars all secondhand, each has specific uses. But the newest is over 10years old, the oldest 28. Considering the energy spent making them, I certainly believe in prolonging their lifespan as much as possible. I guess someone has to, but really don’t understand why you’d buy a brand new car.

On a separate note - why has diesel just plummeted in price? It’s now 7p litre cheaper than petrol?

Two weeks ago I heard someone in the industry announce that diesel currently costs less to produce than unleaded.
Don’t know if the drop is purely down to costs or release of info.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Rowan Atkinson makes a good case for the problems with electric cars:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

Pretty good article and in line with what I'm thinking - the electric is only part of the future of car transport: that hydrogen is a good option and that they should not ban ICEs if they can fuel them with synthetics that are reasonably eco.

kingstongraham

The most sensible bit in there is "use it as little as possible".

morstar

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

So, I’d need to do more research to back the claims up but…

I have definitely read that some infrastructure such as multi storey car parks may be stressed beyond their design expectations. They may not be well reasoned arguments so I’m not hanging my hat on them.

Roads are generally maintained to a minimal standard these days, increased weight on the majority of vehicles will inevitably increase maintenance as there is no wiggle room left to let them degrade more than is already allowed.

I have also read that the next pollutant in the cross hairs for cars is rubber particles from tyre wear. The increase in weight will increase this wear.

I’m not anti electric, i considered buying on many occasions, it’s just I am seeing more and more issues beyond just the lack of charging infrastructure which is the obvious practical limitation.

The battery making and recycling issue can’t just be swept under the carpet even if the total emissions are theoretically less. It’s a new issue that is being ignored.

One of Atkinsons points is about lifecycle and getting longer life out of an existing car. If anything, the decreasing range of a 3 year old battery will encourage exactly the opposite.

TheBigBean

Just because cars are sold after three years doesn't mean they are junked.

morstar

TheBigBean said:

Just because cars are sold after three years doesn't mean they are junked.

Nope. Nobody says it does.

Jezyboy

The cheaper electric cars (i.e. ones with low range as new) will be extra undesirable second hand though.

TheBigBean

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

Just because cars are sold after three years doesn't mean they are junked.

Nope. Nobody says it does.

What's the relevance of how frequently people change cars?

rjsterry

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

So, I’d need to do more research to back the claims up but…

I have definitely read that some infrastructure such as multi storey car parks may be stressed beyond their design expectations. They may not be well reasoned arguments so I’m not hanging my hat on them.

Roads are generally maintained to a minimal standard these days, increased weight on the majority of vehicles will inevitably increase maintenance as there is no wiggle room left to let them degrade more than is already allowed.

I have also read that the next pollutant in the cross hairs for cars is rubber particles from tyre wear. The increase in weight will increase this wear.

I’m not anti electric, i considered buying on many occasions, it’s just I am seeing more and more issues beyond just the lack of charging infrastructure which is the obvious practical limitation.

The battery making and recycling issue can’t just be swept under the carpet even if the total emissions are theoretically less. It’s a new issue that is being ignored.

One of Atkinsons points is about lifecycle and getting longer life out of an existing car. If anything, the decreasing range of a 3 year old battery will encourage exactly the opposite.

Structural engineers are not designing with such narrow safety margins that a few hundred kilos extra per car - roughly the same as the difference between the vehicle having a full complement of passengers or being empty - could cause collapse. Otherwise they'd need a weighbridge at the entrance. It's a nonsense scare story.

Pross has already covered road wear and similarly, tyre and brake dust is an issue that affects all vehicles.

EVs are certainly not the answer to everything, but neither is the conversation helped by scare stories.

morstar

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

Just because cars are sold after three years doesn't mean they are junked.

Nope. Nobody says it does.

What's the relevance of how frequently people change cars?

Maths isn’t it.

Suppose there’s a rolling billion cars in the world being used at any given time. The same number of new and scrapped cars in any given period.

Imagine, 5% of owners replace their car every 3 years. That’s 16.7m new cars every year. If that reduces to 5 years, it’s 10m new cars per year.

pangolin

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

Just because cars are sold after three years doesn't mean they are junked.

Nope. Nobody says it does.

What's the relevance of how frequently people change cars?

Maths isn’t it.

Suppose there’s a rolling billion cars in the world being used at any given time. The same number of new and scrapped cars in any given period.

Imagine, 5% of owners replace their car every 3 years. That’s 16.7m new cars every year. If that reduces to 5 years, it’s 10m new cars per year.

What's happening to them if they're not getting junked?

morstar

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

So, I’d need to do more research to back the claims up but…

I have definitely read that some infrastructure such as multi storey car parks may be stressed beyond their design expectations. They may not be well reasoned arguments so I’m not hanging my hat on them.

Roads are generally maintained to a minimal standard these days, increased weight on the majority of vehicles will inevitably increase maintenance as there is no wiggle room left to let them degrade more than is already allowed.

I have also read that the next pollutant in the cross hairs for cars is rubber particles from tyre wear. The increase in weight will increase this wear.

I’m not anti electric, i considered buying on many occasions, it’s just I am seeing more and more issues beyond just the lack of charging infrastructure which is the obvious practical limitation.

The battery making and recycling issue can’t just be swept under the carpet even if the total emissions are theoretically less. It’s a new issue that is being ignored.

One of Atkinsons points is about lifecycle and getting longer life out of an existing car. If anything, the decreasing range of a 3 year old battery will encourage exactly the opposite.

Structural engineers are not designing with such narrow safety margins that a few hundred kilos extra per car - roughly the same as the difference between the vehicle having a full complement of passengers or being empty - could cause collapse. Otherwise they'd need a weighbridge at the entrance. It's a nonsense scare story.

Pross has already covered road wear and similarly, tyre and brake dust is an issue that affects all vehicles.

EVs are certainly not the answer to everything, but neither is the conversation helped by scare stories.

I did caveat that they may not be good examples. The car park one did seem unlikely but, equally, take somewhere where standards are demonstrably lower (e.g. Italy)

Tyre and Brake dust will be higher with heavier cars. I didn’t say it was a new issue. I have no idea how big an actual issue it is.

But then again, I converted to diesel because that was encouraged when I did. Now diesel is an issue in urban areas. Is tyre and brake particles the next big issue that will change thinking?

rjsterry

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

So, I’d need to do more research to back the claims up but…

I have definitely read that some infrastructure such as multi storey car parks may be stressed beyond their design expectations. They may not be well reasoned arguments so I’m not hanging my hat on them.

Roads are generally maintained to a minimal standard these days, increased weight on the majority of vehicles will inevitably increase maintenance as there is no wiggle room left to let them degrade more than is already allowed.

I have also read that the next pollutant in the cross hairs for cars is rubber particles from tyre wear. The increase in weight will increase this wear.

I’m not anti electric, i considered buying on many occasions, it’s just I am seeing more and more issues beyond just the lack of charging infrastructure which is the obvious practical limitation.

The battery making and recycling issue can’t just be swept under the carpet even if the total emissions are theoretically less. It’s a new issue that is being ignored.

One of Atkinsons points is about lifecycle and getting longer life out of an existing car. If anything, the decreasing range of a 3 year old battery will encourage exactly the opposite.

Structural engineers are not designing with such narrow safety margins that a few hundred kilos extra per car - roughly the same as the difference between the vehicle having a full complement of passengers or being empty - could cause collapse. Otherwise they'd need a weighbridge at the entrance. It's a nonsense scare story.

Pross has already covered road wear and similarly, tyre and brake dust is an issue that affects all vehicles.

EVs are certainly not the answer to everything, but neither is the conversation helped by scare stories.

I did caveat that they may not be good examples. The car park one did seem unlikely but, equally, take somewhere where standards are demonstrably lower (e.g. Italy)

Tyre and Brake dust will be higher with heavier cars. I didn’t say it was a new issue. I have no idea how big an actual issue it is.

But then again, I converted to diesel because that was encouraged when I did. Now diesel is an issue in urban areas. Is tyre and brake particles the next big issue that will change thinking?

We are becoming more aware of the harm caused by particulates generally, especially at the smaller scale where they can pass straight into the bloodstream from inhaled air. The particulates from tyres and brakes are significant, whether the increase from ICE > EV is significant relative to the general trend for bigger heavier cars I don't know, but it seems less likely.

mully79

As a hybrid driver I can drive without using the brakes at all so extra brake dust contaminants is a bit of nonsense. I'm pretty sure regenerative braking makes up for any extra weight.

Tyre wear might be a thing. I used to get 25000 miles in the diesel and they're starting to look like they're wearing faster in the hybrid though I'm only at 10000 miles. I might make 20000. Lighting them up is very easy with the torque from the electric motors so it's a bit hard to tell if just the weight is a major factor.

morstar

pangolin said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

Just because cars are sold after three years doesn't mean they are junked.

Nope. Nobody says it does.

What's the relevance of how frequently people change cars?

Maths isn’t it.

Suppose there’s a rolling billion cars in the world being used at any given time. The same number of new and scrapped cars in any given period.

Imagine, 5% of owners replace their car every 3 years. That’s 16.7m new cars every year. If that reduces to 5 years, it’s 10m new cars per year.

What's happening to them if they're not getting junked?

I neither understand your question or the point you want me to respond to?

I’m simply explaining why people changing cars more frequently increases demand for new cars.

The numbers are made up if that needs clarifying.

morstar

If I understand correctly, the position seems to be that there are no cost or environmental impacts from the cars being significantly heavier and the batteries having short shelf life and no effective recycling as of yet.

Nor that the limited supply of rare earth metals are in any way relevant to electric cars being the ‘right’ or possibly wrong solution.

Nor that increasing the frequency of buying new is in any way wasteful (despite built in obsolescence being known to be wasteful and the short battery life having a similar outcome).

I’ve already said I’m not anti, I just think it’s been oversold as a solution/ the negatives are being overlooked.

morstar

The more I think it through, the more I think our bold aim to phase out new Ice and hybrid by 2030 and 2035 is more about trying to incentivise the British markets to establish a global lead in these technologies. I’m not sure that’s really happened as we’re importing most of the tech.
The bit we do need to do ourselves (the charging infrastructure) simply isn’t happening.

This latter point is 100% the biggest blocker to me buying an electric car.

rjsterry

morstar said:

If I understand correctly, the position seems to be that there are no cost or environmental impacts from the cars being significantly heavier and the batteries having short shelf life and no effective recycling as of yet.

Nor that the limited supply of rare earth metals are in any way relevant to electric cars being the ‘right’ or possibly wrong solution.

Nor that increasing the frequency of buying new is in any way wasteful (despite built in obsolescence being known to be wasteful and the short battery life having a similar outcome).

I’ve already said I’m not anti, I just think it’s been oversold as a solution/ the negatives are being overlooked.

That's not what people have said. They have said that some of the scare stories - carpark loading - are nonsense. Others - extra wear on roads - are probably technically true but overstated. Battery production and recycling is definitely an issue, but needs to be seen in the context of comparable issues for alternatives - extraction and refinement of petrol is not cost-free. Changes in purchasing/ownership models are of concern, but these apply whatever the means of propulsion. Most things are oversold. The improvement over ICE propulsion is significant but many of the problems of individualised transport remain, so EVs are certainly not a magic wand for low carbon transport, let alone wider aspects of energy production and use.

pblakeney

morstar said:

The more I think it through, the more I think our bold aim to phase out new Ice and hybrid by 2030 and 2035 is more about trying to incentivise the British markets to establish a global lead in these technologies. I’m not sure that’s really happened as we’re importing most of the tech.
The bit we do need to do ourselves (the charging infrastructure) simply isn’t happening.

This latter point is 100% the biggest blocker to me buying an electric car.

I simply do not see the infrastructure for the 2030 target being in place. It will either be pushed back or people will hold onto their existing ICE cars. Used prices will sky rocket.

Pross

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

So, I’d need to do more research to back the claims up but…

I have definitely read that some infrastructure such as multi storey car parks may be stressed beyond their design expectations. They may not be well reasoned arguments so I’m not hanging my hat on them.

Roads are generally maintained to a minimal standard these days, increased weight on the majority of vehicles will inevitably increase maintenance as there is no wiggle room left to let them degrade more than is already allowed.

I have also read that the next pollutant in the cross hairs for cars is rubber particles from tyre wear. The increase in weight will increase this wear.

I’m not anti electric, i considered buying on many occasions, it’s just I am seeing more and more issues beyond just the lack of charging infrastructure which is the obvious practical limitation.

The battery making and recycling issue can’t just be swept under the carpet even if the total emissions are theoretically less. It’s a new issue that is being ignored.

One of Atkinsons points is about lifecycle and getting longer life out of an existing car. If anything, the decreasing range of a 3 year old battery will encourage exactly the opposite.

It really doesn't, as you point out yourself the deterioration in roads is down to lack of maintenance. Skipping the proper minor maintenance regime means that the problem gets worse and worse but a minor increase in vehicle mass is negligible. The following is an explanation from the Kent CC design information.

"Vehicle Wear Factor
Vehicle wear factors are dependant upon the total vehicle weight and its distribution on the vehicle, which affects the load on each axle. Tyre size and pressure and axle configuration affect the load pattern on the structural layers but are not considered for overall structural pavement design in the UK. A Standard 8T axle is said to have a wear factor of 1.0. Axle Loads and their wear factors have been found to have a fourth power law, in that Wear @ 0.0002 x [Axle Load] 4

Typical wear factors are as follows:
1T .0002
5T 0.15
8T 1.0
10T 2.3
13T 6.5
From this it can be seen that the wear factor for a car is negligible compared to a commercial vehicle, it is for this reason that they are ignored in structural calculations."

Wheelspinner

Pross said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

So, I’d need to do more research to back the claims up but…

I have definitely read that some infrastructure such as multi storey car parks may be stressed beyond their design expectations. They may not be well reasoned arguments so I’m not hanging my hat on them.

Roads are generally maintained to a minimal standard these days, increased weight on the majority of vehicles will inevitably increase maintenance as there is no wiggle room left to let them degrade more than is already allowed.

I have also read that the next pollutant in the cross hairs for cars is rubber particles from tyre wear. The increase in weight will increase this wear.

I’m not anti electric, i considered buying on many occasions, it’s just I am seeing more and more issues beyond just the lack of charging infrastructure which is the obvious practical limitation.

The battery making and recycling issue can’t just be swept under the carpet even if the total emissions are theoretically less. It’s a new issue that is being ignored.

One of Atkinsons points is about lifecycle and getting longer life out of an existing car. If anything, the decreasing range of a 3 year old battery will encourage exactly the opposite.

It really doesn't, as you point out yourself the deterioration in roads is down to lack of maintenance. Skipping the proper minor maintenance regime means that the problem gets worse and worse but a minor increase in vehicle mass is negligible. The following is an explanation from the Kent CC design information.

"Vehicle Wear Factor
Vehicle wear factors are dependant upon the total vehicle weight and its distribution on the vehicle, which affects the load on each axle. Tyre size and pressure and axle configuration affect the load pattern on the structural layers but are not considered for overall structural pavement design in the UK. A Standard 8T axle is said to have a wear factor of 1.0. Axle Loads and their wear factors have been found to have a fourth power law, in that Wear @ 0.0002 x [Axle Load] 4

Typical wear factors are as follows:
1T .0002
5T 0.15
8T 1.0
10T 2.3
13T 6.5
From this it can be seen that the wear factor for a car is negligible compared to a commercial vehicle, it is for this reason that they are ignored in structural calculations."

If I understand your tech here, then you can essentially ignore (say) 30 cars carrying one person each - from a road wear perspective - yet whack all of those people in a single public transport thing such as a 15 ton bus, and suddenly you have a road wear and maintenance problem?

kingstongraham

I find it difficult to believe that cars have no effect on the creation and expansion of potholes.