EV are they worth it?
- Thread starter ericmark
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
Yes, there's a fair bit of CO2 involved in EV battery manufacture, but some of that is offset by the CO2 required to make parts of an ICE vehicle that are not present on an EV (like the engine) and then through the car's life, parts that would be replaced on an ICE vehicle (like clutches, filters and exhausts) that aren't present on an EV. Calculations vary, but I think the most recent I've seen, suggest that for a typical "family saloon" of similar performance, the EV will pay off the extra manufacturing CO2 from its battery in about 50,000 miles. Thereafter, it is responsible for far fewer CO2 emissions than the ICE.
e-bikes are an interesting one. I have this dilemma right now, as Mrs. Avocet has an e-bike. Like you, I argue that the whole reason for riding my bike is to get exercise, so adding a motor and battery is counter-productive. However, what seems to happen in practice, is that people ride their e-bikes further and more often (because it's easier), so they end up doing the same amount of exercise in the end, AND they're often replacing car journeys.
True - as are other countries, and we are looking to use more North Sea oil and gas, but that's as a result of the war in Ukraine, and shouldn't be a permanent situation.
I don't watch TV. Did the BBC say when putin will keel over and hand over all his gas?
Sponsored Links
Given that even before the war started, he didn't do that, do you think it's likely that he'd ever "hand over all his gas"? No... me neither...
If the BBC were to give you a date, would you believe them? No... thought not...
Putting this question the other way round, do you think the war will continue indefinitely?
Huge is another myth.
2 years is more likely for UK vehicles, and that's based on data from 2 years ago.
Factcheck: How electric vehicles help to tackle climate change
Electric vehicles (EVs) are an important part of meeting global goals on climate change. They feature prominently in mitigation pathways that limit warming to well-below 2C or 1.5C, which would be inline with the Paris Agreement’s targets.
www.carbonbrief.org
The disruption is likely to continue indefinitely. I don't think putin's joking when he said he's leaving europe for asia. This has enormous implications: EVs could turn into a pipe dream.
I doubt both of those claims! Putin won't have another 10 years in him - probably less, the way he's going. And just run this one past me again... EVs will end up being a pipe dream...
...because we can't get oil and gas...?!
Okay...
And bread. If they weaponize wheat and fertilisers, people will have nothing left for EV's.
I don't think Putin will be so lucky if he tries to dominate China
I am not aware he had such ambitions. He's taking his business to asia. China wouldn't say no. When energy and food are cheap, EV's will thrive in china.
D
Deleted member 174758
His big problem is that his eastern gas fields are relatively small in comparison to the reserves nearer to Europe and his gas pipelines are mainly to Europe, not China, so any move to ship gas eastwards that way will take years to achieve. And if China is his main customer, who do you think will be setting the price?
In the meantime Germany, in particular (but also Italy, Austria and Hungary), needs to wean itself off Russian gas and oil. They, more than any country, have pumped money into Putin's coffers *(despite being warned 40 years ago of the potential future consequences of reliance on Russia, or as it then was the Soviet Union). That probably means that we'll see a resurgence in nuclear and a lot more solar, wind and hydro which will replace Russian gas
If putin needed infrastructure, he could probably get a cheap bulk deal with fast delivery. Being the largest merchant navy in the world, I don't think china would have trouble shifting a little gas. In any case, they may not have to go far and just off load at german ports for a quick profit.
D
Deleted member 174758
Yes they would. To transport bulk fuels in a country like Russia pipeline is the only feasible method because their rail infrastructure simply isn't up to it - but the real problem isn't selling the stuff, the problems are (i) getting the gas/oil to a suitable port which isn't effectively blockaded, (ii) bunkering materials to await transshipment onto tankers/LNG carriers (iii) in the case of gas, building a gas liquifaction plant (the Russians have none - the technology is western), (iv) having the port facilities capable of handing supertankers and (v) ensuring that those tankers have sea lanes available to them.
Take a look at where Russia's ports are and where the gas pipelines run to. Russia has very few ice-free ports (i.e ports that aren't frozen solid for 6 months a year). Kaliningrad? Not connected to Russia by land unless they invade Poland/Lithuania. St. Petersburg? Frozen in winter. Black sea ports? Vessels have to transit the Dardanelles which might prove very difficult in future the way Putin is heading. All of which leaves Murmansk as the only ice free port year round - the two big problems with Murmansk is that it has no gas pipeline and only a small oil pipeline with minimal port handling facilities. So that would require a huge investment and I'm not certain that the access to the port is actually suitable for supertankers. That's before you take into consideration that transit around the North Cape often requires transit through Norwegian territorial waters to avoid flow ice.
So the problem is likely to be more than an issue of just flogging it cheap
Last edited by a moderator:
So, what you are saying is that the 9 fold increase in india's gas/oil (can't remember which) import is bunk because russia can't get the stuff to them? Deals of similar and greater proportions with china would be the same. Essentially, what you are implying is that these countries are dealing in hot air. I find this hard to believe. What I believe is that if there's a profit, there is a way. However russia is doing it, they are doing it. If super tankers don't fit, no law says mini tankers can't be used.
For all you know, russia could have strategic secret underground pipelines crisscrossing the entire country. This could explain why the war in ukraine is done at an extra leisurely pace.
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
