When is Green not Green?

Electric car footprint exposed: Volvo says emissions from making EVs can be 70% HIGHER than petrol models - but once they've done 70,000 miles they become greener (msn.com)

So is it all really just a gimmick, or control of the masses?

None of it is thought through properly.

I'm looking at having to get rid of my runabout car because its struggling to get through the emmisons part of the MOT, and its looking like injectors which wouldnt be cost effective to change, the thing is, It never gets used much so I'm sure the cost to the environment is much more if I had to send an otherwise serviceable vehicle to the scrapyard than if it was allowed to continue until it really did reach end of life.

I hate shopping for cars!

Phoenix said:

None of it is thought through properly.

Click to expand...

That is so true.

It depends what you read and who to believe but I've always believed it more environmentally friendly to maintain older cars than frequently replacing them.

I've also seen it claimed that building and installing wind turbines creates more pollution than they are expected to save in their lifetime.

I get slagged off on here for my doubting and questioning but the very fact that so called anti-environmental discussions are so keenly suppressed just makes me even more suspicious.

Sharpend said:

Electric car footprint exposed: Volvo says emissions from making EVs can be 70% HIGHER than petrol models - but once they've done 70,000 miles they become greener (msn.com)

So is it all really just a gimmick, or control of the masses?

Click to expand...

well known and has been for quite a while, it's why I'm not a fan of EVs and prefer hydrogen. However, you also need to factor in health improvements for people living in inner cities from reduced pollution, and the benefit of reduced noise. Trouble with numbers is they need to be hollistic, ie the cost of any technology isn't just the cost of making and using it, it's the cost of knock on effects like lots of kids with asthma, which costs the NHS a fortune, and the eventual disposal costs. The other advantage of getting rid of oil burners, is that we will eventually get rid of tossers like the Saudi Royal family, and their wondeful human rights record. 

@Sharpendhave a read of this.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change

and why hydrogen isn't being pushed more. Trouble with hydrogen is the energy used to generate it in the first place is high. However, we are keen on building wind farms and other green generation in very remote places, so as per a diagram posted on here recently, transmission loses will be very large from these remote sites. So I reckon we are better off using some of these remote sites for generating hydrogen, although I havn't found any figures to back that up or deny it. Generating hydrogen could also be done at a more local level as well of course. Part of my thinking here is also removing the randomness of green generation, too much some days, not enough on another, so instead of buidling great big storage banks of batteries or the ilk, as is being currently proposed by some, you can just split water into hydrogen as and when energy is available. 

https://thedriven.io/2018/11/15/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-have-three-times-emissions-of-battery-evs-uq-study/

binky said:

. Trouble with hydrogen is the energy used to generate it in the first place is high

Click to expand...

think thats the major issue with hydrogen at the moment, it takes more energy to split H2O into hydrogren & oxygen than you get combining it back into H2O. until a more energy effifient way of splitting it is found, or so much clean electricity is available that its viable to waste energy splitting it for the convenience of easy refil of vehicles rather than batteries, then its bit of a problem

Andy™ said:

think thats the major issue with hydrogen at the moment, it takes more energy to split H2O into hydrogren & oxygen than you get combining it back into H2O. until a more energy effifient way of splitting it is found, or so much clean electricity is available that its viable to waste energy splitting it for the convenience of easy refil of vehicles rather than batteries, then its bit of a problem

Click to expand...

precisely, it's why the environmental lobby pushes batteries, plus that's a known easy fix tech and quick to implement. However, i'm not sure the environmental crowd truly understands transmission loses over the national grid. Unfortunately I don't follow that close enough to know the answer. Someone did post me a link the other day about some new cable installed to transmit leccy from Scotland to England that is working at 0.6Gw and not the 2,2Gw it was suppossed to, cost of laying and repairing said firk up, £1.2billion .  :Godno: . Unfortunately that was on FB somewhere, I'll see if I can find it. Micro nuclear seems to be gaining momentum, apparently you can build one for £20m, but I havn't has time to check what you get for your money.

I thought I read that the government would match the first £20m that private funding raises but total cost of micro nuclear was £2bn compared with Sizewell at £20bn. 

Sharpend said:

I thought I read that the government would match the first £20m that private funding raises but total cost of micro nuclear was £2bn compared with Sizewell at £20bn. 

Click to expand...

My bad, several zeros out. Scary bit is we will  only have one nuclear plant left by 2030. I was reading up on insulating houses the other day. To bring 25 million houses to net zero ( whatever that actually means) would cost around £360 billion, plus you have to find the workforce to do that, which makes nuclear seem cheap. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59201945

Anyone else notice this article about a successful claim that wind-turbine-syndrome can affect your health..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/08/french-couple-wins-legal-fight-wind-turbine-syndrome-windfarm-health

p.s. This is in France though...  maybe UK wind is less harmful? 

:C

I imagine that the Uk Gov have investigated the effects of wind and deemed it to be non invasive given the amount l;

A: of turbines they have permitted to be installed

B: the amount of wind they create themselves. 
However, the ambulance chasers will soon lock onto another easy money scam, so I’m sure we’ll see some cases blowing up over here soon. 

I looked into buying an electric van but to even out the costs between ICE and electric I would need to be doing 50K miles a year for five years to break even. And that doesn't include recharge times adding to my daily trip if I can find an available charger where I would be working.

My local town mayor is a massive advocate of electric vehicles and doesn't believe me when I say that Doris doing her weekly two miles trips to the shops in her electric car has a higher carbon footprint that a petrol equivalent. Not to mention the cahrge losses when he vehicle is not in use, even at 1% a day that's nearly 4 charges worth of wasted energy a year.

SPECIAL LOCATION said:

Anyone else notice this article about a successful claim that wind-turbine-syndrome can affect your health..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/08/french-couple-wins-legal-fight-wind-turbine-syndrome-windfarm-health

p.s. This is in France though...  maybe UK wind is less harmful? 

:C

Click to expand...

 interesting article. When they staarted outting wind turbines up in Cornwall, there were complaints of low level noise in certain weather conditions, a bit like the chop cop chop of a helicopter.  I believe turbine blades have been designed to eradicate this now. 

I did have a couple complain that the solar panels we were fitting made her tinnitus worse, from the moment the actual customer signed the contract....

It's well known that the manufacture of an BEV has a higher carbon footprint than an ICE vehicle.... It's usually stated that the cross over point is about 40k miles after which a BEV is much better for the environment

It's not a straight forward calculation to make though as both sides of the fence miss out some of the key figures... IMHO you have to look at it "cradle to grave", and include the "cradle to grave" emissions that the fuels that they use generate too

Fully charged on YouTube have done a reasonable video about this 

On sky news this morning - VW and Toyota wont sign......

https://news.sky.com/story/worlds-largest-car-manufacturers-swerve-climate-commitment-12464857

Old Timer said:

On sky news this morning - VW and Toyota wont sign......

https://news.sky.com/story/worlds-largest-car-manufacturers-swerve-climate-commitment-12464857

Click to expand...

they are building EV, but quite rightly point out, many markets don't have the infrastruture to use them yet. This is what developing nations want money for, to help them build the infrastruture needed. 

What this does emphaise is something else I've mentioned a few times before, local generation. Stick a few solar panels on every house, and make it illegal for commercial property owners to block tennants from installing solar. if you work on 26million houses at say £3k for a 2kW system, then that's roughly £8billion, a shed load less than the money spent on the failed track and trace system. 

binky said:

they are building EV, but quite rightly point out, many markets don't have the infrastruture to use them yet. This is what developing nations want money for, to help them build the infrastruture needed. 

Click to expand...

The question is who determines what is a developing country? India? Who have a space program? 
Are the likes of African leaders going to develop an EV structure? Or just keep the money? 

Sharpend said:

The question is who determines what is a developing country? India? Who have a space program? 
Are the likes of African leaders going to develop an EV structure? Or just keep the money? 

Click to expand...

the Indian space programme is interesting, they went down that route as satellite comms was cheaper than running cables everywhere. They also have the money for nuclear weapons. They probably just need help with the tech on the cheap. Bangladesh is different kettle of fish, they already have 5 million climate refugees, and guess where they probably want to move to? So its probably in our own interests to help them.

Africa basically has shed loads of resources and money, but, there's loads of NGOs that means they could be supported but not by giving money to the corrupt governments. If you watch the earth shot prize programmes, there's a great example of small villages installing solar panels and trading it between the adjacent village huts to create micro enrgy networks. 

Exactly how any monies will be distributed / assigned I don't really know, you would have to go look that up, but I suspect most of the money would be in the form of cheap loans rather than hand outs.