The Historically Accurate EV discussion

[midgetman]

Here's an interesting one.

https://www.skoda-storyboard.com/en/...in-a-flywheel/



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Here's an interesting one.

https://www.skoda-storyboard.com/en/...in-a-flywheel/

Yes and interesting adoption of the kinetic flywheel. Not sure how many years ago it was that William’s system was used in WEC?

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Yes and interesting adoption of the kinetic flywheel. Not sure how many years ago it was that William’s system was used in WEC?

They did some work with Porsche on the GTR3 Hybrid in 2010 and then I think the Audi collaboration was a couple of years later.

[crmalcolm]

In the spirit of 'historic', but bringing it up to date, VW are pushing forward with their all-electric successor to the Microbus.

'The ID Buzz, often described as a spiritual successor to the Microbus of 1950, sits on Volkswagen’s electric-only MEB architecture and is expected to have a 372-mile range. Rear-wheel-drive and four-wheel-drive versions will be offered, delivering 268bhp and 369bhp respectively.'

[Mike Bell]

The GT3R hybrid was 2010, as you say....

https://www.greencarcongress.com/201...-20100211.html

[Alan Morgan]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In the spirit of 'historic', but bringing it up to date, VW are pushing forward with their all-electric successor to the Microbus.

'The ID Buzz, often described as a spiritual successor to the Microbus of 1950, sits on Volkswagen’s electric-only MEB architecture and is expected to have a 372-mile range. Rear-wheel-drive and four-wheel-drive versions will be offered, delivering 268bhp and 369bhp respectively.'

If the "camper conversion" industry survives The Crisis (most of them are very small companies with high stock levels) then I think the ID Buzz could be a winner. It looks great IMO.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Alan Morgan

If the "camper conversion" industry survives The Crisis (most of them are very small companies with high stock levels) then I think the ID Buzz could be a winner. It looks great IMO.

Agree. Even if the range quoted is optimistic it’s still an interesting vehicle. Presume along with motor options there will be different battery packs as well.

[Tel 911S]

The Coronavirus lockdown has at least shown up one of the Greens lies .
https://notrickszone.com/2020/04/14/...man-activists/

Emissions monitoring in Stuttgart has only had the normal seasons small reduction at the end of Winter , & the huge drop in traffic volume has not changed the totals at all .Which proves that the Greens claim of [ 80% of all emissions come from traffic ] , is another one of their lies .

[John Turner]

Yeah, right, I guess we can all find science which feeds our views. These are a few that feed mine. Whilst they refer to all pollution, there are clear references to the reduction of NO2 in three of them:-

https://www.ft.com/content/052923d2-...4-daa3def9ae03

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52113695

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/latest/currentlevels

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...wn-coronavirus

https://southeusummit.com/europe/cri...ls-to-plummet/

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Yeah, right, I guess we can all find science which feeds our views.

As I’ve repeatedly said.....

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

The Coronavirus lockdown has at least shown up one of the Greens lies .
https://notrickszone.com/2020/04/14/...man-activists/

Emissions monitoring in Stuttgart has only had the normal seasons small reduction at the end of Winter , & the huge drop in traffic volume has not changed the totals at all .Which proves that the Greens claim of [ 80% of all emissions come from traffic ] , is another one of their lies .

Two questions I would ask of the writers:

1) - how much has diesel traffic declined, given that most people are still consuming goods, and goods are delivered by HGV usually?

2) - If Martin Schraag accuses proponents of car bans of data “manipulation”, how can he prove that his own data has not been "manipulated"?

If anything, the article backs up the justification for Pierre Gosselin to be on 'the list' and comes across as typical click-bait.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Yeah, right, I guess we can all find science which feeds our views. These are a few that feed mine. Whilst they refer to all pollution, there are clear references to the reduction of NO2 in three of them:-

https://www.ft.com/content/052923d2-...4-daa3def9ae03

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52113695

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/latest/currentlevels

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...wn-coronavirus

https://southeusummit.com/europe/cri...ls-to-plummet/

As you said , anybody can use figures to try to prove their viewpoint .
And if you look at the detail in those figures , it is clear that the biggest variations in emissions come in colder weather when heating systems are being used more . And do have a greater variation than caused by the reduction in traffic , so proving that vehicles do not cause 80% of all emissions .

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

As you said , anybody can use figures to try to prove their viewpoint .
And if you look at the detail in those figures , it is clear that the biggest variations in emissions come in colder weather when heating systems are being used more . And do have a greater variation than caused by the reduction in traffic , so proving that vehicles do not cause 80% of all emissions .

And in the article you linked, we are only given an interpretation of the figures and not any context or detail for us to evaluate.

The only figures given, as far as I can tell, are:

'[In] the first quarter of 2020 [...] The NO2 values ​​were 36 µg / m3 and thus below the limit of 40 µg / m3 applicable in Germany.'

In isolation, how can any assessment be made?

The writer even admits that wind conditions make the results invalid to make those types of claims with.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

And in the article you linked, we are only given an interpretation of the figures and not any context or detail for us to evaluate.

The only figures given, as far as I can tell, are:

'[In] the first quarter of 2020 [...] The NO2 values ​​were 36 µg / m3 and thus below the limit of 40 µg / m3 applicable in Germany.'

In isolation, how can any assessment be made?

The writer even admits that wind conditions make the results invalid to make those types of claims with.

The NCAS figures for 10 major UK city areas show that the NO2 figures for Feb - 24th March , [ so still some winter heating in there ] , are only about 20 % down on the 5 year long term average .

With UK traffic down about 60 % overall , if traffic was responsible for 80% of emissions then the reduction should be over 50% .

So , assessments can be made from those facts which show that TRAFFIC DOES NOT PRODUCE 80% of all emissions

[midgetman]

You'd better pray it does........otherwise all central heating will be banned soon. And log burners. And coal fires.

Something has to be done. I'm so lucky I don't even have to visit a big city these days.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

The NCAS figures for 10 major UK city areas show that the NO2 figures for Feb - 24th March , [ so still some winter heating in there ] , are only about 20 % down on the 5 year long term average .

With UK traffic down about 60 % overall , if traffic was responsible for 80% of emissions then the reduction should be over 50% .

So , assessments can be made from those facts which show that TRAFFIC DOES NOT PRODUCE 80% of all emissions

The restrictions on movement didn't start until the 23rd March, and one year's values are not enough to make any claims against.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The restrictions on movement didn't start until the 23rd March, and one year's values are not enough to make any claims against.

The NCAS figures are what the BBC & some others are using to try to claim that
less traffic has caused a reduction in emissions .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52113695

So it seems that , according to you , they are wrong then unless they say what you want them to say .

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

The NCAS figures are what the BBC & some others are using to try to claim that
less traffic has caused a reduction in emissions .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52113695

So it seems that , according to you , they are wrong then unless they say what you want them to say .

Why according to me? You've misrepresented what I have said.

The Gosselin article gives no figures to back up the claims being made.
The BBC is using NCAS figures. They are still wrong to make such claims with any certainty.
The margin of error is so wide that any claims linking traffic volumes with NO2 levels (proving or disproving) are invalid.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

So , assessments can be made from those facts which show that TRAFFIC DOES NOT PRODUCE 80% of all emissions

In any event, why are we getting hung up on diesels. Where in this sentence does it refer to diesels & NO2 only, or have you misquoted? Surely that sentence taken on its own is talking about emissions from all vehicles. Whether the 80% figure is entirely true or not, there is no doubt that the impact is massive and that the lock downs in various countries has illustrated this on air quality, better than anything else could. As CRM says, our own restrictions didn't start until 23 March.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by John Turner

In any event, why are we getting hung up on diesels. Where in this sentence does it refer to diesels & NO2 only, or have you misquoted? Surely that sentence taken on its own is talking about emissions from all vehicles. Whether the 80% figure is entirely true or not, there is no doubt that the impact is massive and that the lock downs in various countries has illustrated this on air quality, better than anything else could. As CRM says, our own restrictions didn't start until 23 March.

Agreed , and if , as CRM says , the restrictions did not apply until 23rd of March ,then this propaganda from the BBC is rubbish .Because the NCAS figures only go up to 24th March .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52113695

But like all of the rubbish in the MSM about emissions , it is all about trying to get the public to accept massive tax rises .
They don,t tell people that the UK emissions in the air have fallen by 75% in the last 50 years .
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...o-2018-summary.

They don,t tell people that to go all electric for home heating & EVs is going to cost the country [ that means the taxpayers ], £ Trillions .

But at the moment , the motorist is the easy target . So bit by bit they are trying to raise motoring taxes with constant lies about traffic pollution .

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Which proves that the Greens claim of [ 80% of all emissions come from traffic ] , is another one of their lies .

Out of interest - if 'the Greens' are being accused of lies with a claim of 80% of emissions come from traffic, do you have a source for where 'the Greens' made that claim?

EEA (2012) - 'Road transport is responsible for 17.5 % of overall greenhouse gas emissions in Europe'.

ONS (2019) - 'In 2017, Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from road transport made up around a fifth of the UK’s total GHG emissions'

[grantp]

I think there are some people in the Pressure Groups who like to conflate the CO2 and Particulates pollution concerns into a single "all transport is bad" message.

Perhaps we should take the current opportunity to experience what a reduced dependence on transport really means.

Would "working from home" really be an energy reduction benefit over a full winter?

Indeed would most of the jobs that can be done, at a pinch, working from home still be necessary if doing so became the norm?

Road transport could be largely eliminated especially if demand for goods and food was reduced.

Air transport may not recover anyway. There may be doubts about whether it would be affordable. I think it might be some time before restrictions are likely to be lifted globally and people will see the world as "safe" to travel. They may have lost the enthusiasm for the "excitement".

I suspect the Cruising industry might have to work hard to get any but the most hard core floating holiday enthusiasts to rush back to their cabins.

If economies crash one might assume that shipping needs far less capacity then it current has.

It is just possible that we may find ourselves involved with such an experiment whether intentional or not.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Out of interest - if 'the Greens' are being accused of lies with a claim of 80% of emissions come from traffic, do you have a source for where 'the Greens' made that claim?

EEA (2012) - 'Road transport is responsible for 17.5 % of overall greenhouse gas emissions in Europe'.

ONS (2019) - 'In 2017, Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from road transport made up around a fifth of the UK’s total GHG emissions'

The 80% claim has come from a lot of Green sources , no doubt some of them just repeating what someone else had told them .
But the Baden-Wurtemberg State Institute for the Environment was one in Germany which spiked the original article .
And there are others making the same claim which probably gets taken out of context .
https://greenerjourneys.com/wp-conte...2017-FINAL.pdf

But the 2 items you linked to were just talking about the mythical greenhouse gas , & not just all emissions

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

The 80% claim has come from a lot of Green sources , no doubt some of them just repeating what someone else had told them .
But the Baden-Wurtemberg State Institute for the Environment was one in Germany which spiked the original article .
And there are others making the same claim which probably gets taken out of context .
https://greenerjourneys.com/wp-conte...2017-FINAL.pdf

Looking through that link, I might be missing it, but I'm still not seeing any claim that traffic is the cause of 80% of emissions?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

But the 2 items you linked to were just talking about the mythical greenhouse gas , & not just all emissions

What emissions is the 80% claim made against?