Should diesel vehicles be banned from the city centre?

[Litotes]

No they shouldn't.

[Puggie]

This is stuff like suspension, brakes and electrical items. All of which will be found on any electric vehicle.

 

According to Tesla:

 

Unlike combustion engine cars, Tesla vehicles require no traditional oil changes, fuel filter, spark plug replacements, or emission checks. As an electric vehicle, even brake pad replacements are rare because regenerative braking returns energy to the battery, significantly reducing wear on brakes. Our inspections instead focus on checking wheel alignment and tyre condition, assessing replacement parts like key fob batteries and windshield wiper blades, and installing the latest software update.

[Cyclone]

It's a common thought but it's not true for two reasons.

 

Firstly, an electric car travels 8 to 10 times as far as a petrol/diesel engine per joule of power. So we would need only a fraction of the overall energy to power an electric fleet.

 

Secondly, we don't get most of our power from coal although there is quite a lot of gas.

 

Right now:

2.8% from coal

23% nuclear

10.5% wind

48.1% gas

 

Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil or nuclear so we will get ever more renewables and less of the old tech. Lots more windfarms are in construction.

 

Why no solar in the stats? Solar power is fed in so locally that it registers as a drop in grid demand, not as a generation stat. We had a day last month where saturday daytime electricity demand was lower than nighttime demand. The reason is that it was a sunny saturday so there was lots of solar power.

 

The ideal is to charge your car from the electric generated on your solar roof. They store so much charge they can power your home to reduce load on the grid at peak periods.

 

On an annual measure instead of right now.

 

Most of the UK's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, mainly natural gas (30% in 2015) and coal (22%).

 

Burning stuff is bad right, it produces waste gases...

The "idea" isn't very good, given that most people don't have solar roof power, and for half the year in the UK the amount it would generate is quite low.

Not "mostly" coal, I'll accept, but "mostly" fossil fuel.

 

EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

 

Coal power plants appear to be 40% efficient themselves though. If that's correct then, ouch, the total waste in moving that car was greater than in a petrol car.

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2017 at 07:41 ----------

 

They are actually doing amazingly well.

 

Tesla owners are reporting that their batteries still have 95% to 97% capacity after 100,000 miles motoring. A Nissan Leaf taxi in Cornwall has done 150,000 miles and has 90% battery capacity remaining - and its batteries get rapid charged all the time (which causes more wear than slow charging).

 

So the years of real experience we now have is that batteries last a long time.

 

Electric motors don't bung up with carbon like a combustion engine, so the cars are not suffering the same levels of performance degradation you get with a combustion engine.

 

As for initial production, it's not particularly onerous and remember there are savings on not producing a complicated combustion engine and drive train.

In what world is the production of rechargeable batteries not massively damaging to the environment?

 

You appear to be trying to greenwash the subject to be honest.

I expect that electric or hybrid is the future, but don't pretend that it solves pollution problems it doesn't.

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2017 at 07:42 ----------

 

Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil or nuclear so we will get ever more renewables and less of the old tech. Lots more windfarms are in construction.

 

Oh, and this is simply out and out wrong. Nuclear is by a huge margin the cheapest way of producing electricity. Renewables without subsidy are the most expensive.

[Puggie]

I expect that electric or hybrid is the future, but don't pretend that it solves pollution problems it doesn't.

 

It would probably solve pollution levels locally but there will no doubt be a tradeoff elsewhere.

[geared]

According to Tesla:

 

Yes "According to Tesla", because they're unlikely to tell you anything negative about the car.

 

They still require general maintenance over the lifetime of the car, anyone that thinks otherwise has their head in the clouds.

Being a luxury brand when it does come to getting replacement parts it's going to hit you in the wallet pretty hard.

 

Smashed the suspension bouncing thorough one of our finest potholes??

Yea, that will be cheap!

 

It would probably solve pollution levels locally but there will no doubt be a tradeoff elsewhere.

 

Seems to be the way things are going though.

China has filthy air so London doesn't have to.

Edited April 7, 2017 by geared

[Flexo]

Coal

 

It's 2017 - why are you going on about coal?! UK coal use decreased 50% in 2016, now accounts for about 3% (not 22%!!) of UK electricity production and is intended to be entirely phased out by 2025 or perhaps sooner.

 

Oh, and this is simply out and out wrong. Nuclear is by a huge margin the cheapest way of producing electricity. Renewables without subsidy are the most expensive.

 

Nuclear has an absolutely massive subsidy and the cost of long term storage! Hinckley point C will be producing the most expensive electricity ever sold and won't generate anything until at least 2035.

 

Onshore wind is about 20% cheaper than coal or gas. Lots more wind coming online. Onshore wind subsidies ended in April 2016. A great thing about wind is that the grid can instruct the turbines to be switched off during low demand so that the grid is not overloaded - you can't do that with coal or nuclear - so the subsidy is effectively to pay for having spare capacity for peak use.

 

Offshore wind is presently at £97/MWh and falling fast.

 

And those are just the direct costs. Fossil fuels have very high environmental costs beyond that.

[ANGELFIRE1]

I believe the cheapest Tesla is around the £60K mark, that alone will cut pollution. The ordinary man in the street would not be able to afford one.

 

Angel1.

[geared]

Hinkley C seems ever more like a total waste of time and money.

 

IMO it should be shelved for now, money put towards reactor research with the project aiming to introduce a cutting edge reactor producing much smaller quantities of (more easily managed) waste.

[Puggie]

Yes "According to Tesla", because they're unlikely to tell you anything negative about the car.

 

There aren't any other sources to plug because Tesla's business model is radically different to the rest of the car industry. Tesla customers have a direct relationship with the brand. Their business model does not allow for intermediaries and dealerships.

 

I believe the cheapest Tesla is around the £60K mark

 

They will become more affordable over time. The more affordable Model 3 version of their car hits the production line this year and will cost circa £33k

[ads36]

...I believe the cheapest Tesla is around the £60K mark, that alone will cut pollution. The ordinary man in the street would not be able to afford one.

 

don't forget that electric cars don't need petrol - which could mean a significant saving.

 

(we'd save at least £100/month charging a car instead of fueling)

 

and you seem to be suggesting that no other electric options are or will be available, which isn't true.

 

the next time we buy a car, we'll consider a loan to pay for it. that'll cost us £100/200 per month, plus petrol, and we're well into the territory where we could finance an electric car.