[noemon]

The statistic that ICE engines inadequately maintain charge level in their 12v battery.

You cherry picked what you wanted to hear hoping I wouldn't look into it further.

Now you've been caught, again!!

You made a claim with no evidence that batteries are the least prone to failure component of a car, and I responded to your claim by giving you real evidence that it is actually the opposite.

Now, your option to preserve your argument is to post evidence that the battery is indeed what you claimed .ie the least prone to failure component of a car and that Forbes has made an error reporting that statistic, .ie of batteries being actually the mostest one.

[BeesKnee5]

You made a claim with no evidence that batteries are the least prone to failure component of a car, and I responded to your claim by giving you real evidence that it is actually the opposite.

Now, your option to preserve your argument is to post evidence that the battery is what you claimed .ie the least prone to failure component of a car and that Forbes has made an error reporting that statistic, .ie of batteries being actually the highest.

Yes, my claim is that the battery pack of an EV is nothing like a 12 volt battery on an ICE, it is not allowed to empty or overcharge due to BMS and isn't short cycled due to short trips, it is also maintained within an ideal temperature range whilst in use.

This isn't opinion it is fact.

[noemon]

Yes, my claim is that the battery pack of an EV is nothing like a 12 volt battery on an ICE, it is not allowed to empty or overcharge due to BMS and isn't short cycled due to short trips.

This isn't opinion it is fact.

Perhaps, but that's not what you claimed. You claimed that existing car batteries have the smallest chance of failure from the components of an ICE car.

It's not difficult for EVs, the chances of battery failure are much much lower than for a device relying on combustion and friction. Remember, it's the motor that sees the wear and tear, not the battery.

It's a fact that this is not true.

[BeesKnee5]

Perhaps, but that's not what you claimed. You claimed that existing car batteries have the smallest chance of failure from the components of an ICE car.


It's a fact that this is not true.

So you are falsely attributing my point about EV battery packs to 12v ICE batteries.

It's not difficult for EVs, the chances of battery failure are much much lower than for a device relying on combustion and friction. Remember, it's the motor that sees the wear and tear, not the battery.

It clearly references EVs when making the point about batteries.

I'm going to be generous and assume this is a failure of comprehension.

14 minutes 50 seconds onwards. I will pull bits out as I go.

Lexautolease, 165,000 EVs on their books. Not one battery fire or failure or either the battery pack or 12v battery.

Tusker 23,000 EVs , 10,000 ice. No battery failures,
EV run out of charge 0.2%
ICE running out of fuel 2.6%. Plus multiple misfuelings.
EV 31% cheaper on maintenance.

Lex and Tusker both say tire wear is the same, confirmed by RAC analysis.

Brake pads last three times longer as the majority of braking is regenerative.

[noemon]

I truly wonder if Tusker(EV rental company) and yourself and the EV companies like Tesla, NIO, et al and all the regulators are so confident on the superiority and cost-effectiveness of EV products, then why not let people free to decide what car to buy and you are instead beating both consumers and manufacturers with a stick to force them to buy EV's by imposing fines and deadlines?

Why not let the people decide what they want to drive? You have literally surpassed Soviet levels of social control by legislating both on the consumer and manufacturer sides to enforce a product that according to you is superior anyway. How does that compute?

And how do you justify yourselves after knowing that EV's are even more polluting than ICE cars? How are you going to collect these pieces when in 30 years time, global emission rates are up instead of down and consumers have lost both cheap energy and cheap transport?

It clearly references EVs when making the point about batteries.

It clearly references "combustion and friction" but whatever dude. I'll let it slide indeed.

[BeesKnee5]

I truly wonder if Tusker(EV rental company) and yourself and the EV companies like Tesla, NIO, et al and all the regulators are so confident on the superiority and cost-effectiveness of EV products, then why not let people free to decide what car to buy and you are instead beating both consumers and manufacturers with a stick to force them to buy EV's by imposing fines and deadlines?

Why not let the people decide what they want to drive? You have literally surpassed Soviet levels of social control by legislating both on the consumer and manufacturer sides to enforce a product that according to you is superior anyway. How does that compute?

And how do you justify yourselves after knowing that EV's are even more polluting than ICE cars? How are you going to collect these pieces when in 30 years time, global emission rates are up instead of down and consumers have lost both cheap energy and cheap transport

I know, I mean those emissions controls on your car and the forced use of seat belts, never mind having to obey a speed limit.

Its nanny state gone mad, let me buy leaded petrol and cause brain damage to pedestrians.

You have supplied zero evidence that EVs are more polluting. Simply by switching from burning fuel to using electricity reduces the energy required to propel the vehicle by three quarters. In thirty years time you will be struggling to find a working petrol pump for your clapped out 20 year old car that almost no one sells parts for, while on street chargers and induction charging will be common place.

It clearly references "combustion and friction" but whatever dude. I'll let it slide indeed.

You truly are ridiculous.

When comparing the most expensive part of an EV to an ICE then obviously the combustion and friction in an ICE engine is going to be mentioned.

I guess we must assume it is deliberate deception in order to make an irrelevant strawman.


A third of Tuskers lease vehicles are ICE btw.

[noemon]

I know, I mean those emissions controls on your car and the forced use of seat belts, never mind having to obey a speed limit.

You are evading the point with nonsensical platitudes.

If EV's are the superior product, then why not let people buy them without dictated quotas? If you are so confident on the product, why do you need a government dictat to impose it? ICE cars obey all these emission rules, seatbelts and speed limits. Do electric cars obey the emission rules on a real-world lifetime basis? It's doubtful. Are people even aware of the environmental impact of rare-earth mines or are they just happy to know that they cover less of a land surface(after all who cares about the depth, the caves, the water streams, the chemicals used and all that, you can't see that anyway) when compared to coal plants that we are all agreed should go?

You have supplied zero evidence that EVs are more polluting. Simply by switching from burning fuel to using electricity reduces the energy required to propel the vehicle by three quarters. In thirty years time you will be struggling to find a working petrol pump for your clapped out 20 year old car that almost no one sells parts for, while on street chargers and induction charging will be common place.

You have supplied even more evidence than I have that EV's are far more polluting than ICE cars.

You truly are ridiculous.
When comparing the most expensive part of an EV to an ICE then obviously the combustion and friction in an ICE engine is going to be mentioned.
I guess we must assume it is deliberate deception in order to make an irrelevant strawman.
A third of Tuskers lease vehicles are ICE btw.

You truly thought batteries on ICE cars and other devices are the most solid components when compared with devices/components that require "combustion & friction", you were proven wrong.

It's okay, just come to terms with it and move on. Like many other hungups of yours, it's not particularly important.

[BeesKnee5]

]

You truly thought batteries on ICE cars and other devices are the most solid components when compared with devices/components that require "combustion & friction", you were proven wrong.
.

This is the strawman you created and not the claim I made. Well done for highlighting your dishonesty even after being given the benefit of the doubt.

[BeesKnee5]

If EV's are the superior product, then why not let people buy them without dictated quotas? If you are so confident on the product, why do you need a government dictat to impose it? ICE cars obey all these emission rules, seatbelts and speed limits. Do electric cars obey the emission rules on a real-world lifetime basis? It's doubtful

I welcome your attempts to change government minds, in the meantime the governments most recent announcement has pushed investment away and all our neighbours are moving swiftly. The cost to the UK of not embracing the change is greater .

https://www.ft.com/content/e007cdbd-168 ... f9da178ae2


Did dieselgate teach you nothing about ICE cars and emissions rules?

Do I need a need a government dictat to impose EVs on me? No.

My 20,000 miles so far has cost £500 in charging and would've cost £3,500 in fuel. My servicing is £99 once every two years. My brakes will last forever.

The key reason for government mandate is emission targets. Over the life of an EV that is 1/8th of an ICE in the UK. Not to mention the reduction in the use of bunker fuel to ship oil around the planet as a result of switching to electrification. It is bizarre that half the shipping fuel burnt is to transport fuel.

[noemon]

EV motto:

"In China we trust to reduce global emissions".

"We trust that the Chinese will be responsible in their mining, in their disposing of batteries and in processing these energy-intensive minerals."

"We trust Chinese software developers to take over total control of our battery management systems, and to ping us at any given time".

This is the strawman you created and not the claim I made. Well done for highlighting your dishonesty even after being given the benefit of the doubt.

Yet another projection, piled on the numerous existing ones already.

Over the life of an EV that is 1/8th of an ICE in the UK

Over the life of the average 3 year lease(30k miles), EV's are about 3 times more emissions heavy than the equivalent ICE car as proven by several actual studies, including the ones that you cited. You can lie to the public with 17 year benchmarks when the average lifespan of a car on the road is 8 and the average lease is 3 years, but the con is eventually unsustainable as the emissions will rear their ugly heads.

An EV on an average 3 year(30k miles) lease is in reality about 2-3 times more emissions polluting than an ICE car on the exact same lease terms.

And you are mandating this openly & shamelessly with dictat.

Let that sink in.

[BeesKnee5]

So back we go to the nonsense that EVs stop working after three years.

As for China, there is a huge push now in Europe and the US to bring production back and safeguard supply lines.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos- ... 023-05-18/

https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/16/track ... h-america/

It is no longer assumed that it is safe to rely on Chinese imports.

[noemon]

So back we go to the nonsense that EVs stop working after three years.

As long as you acknowledge and understand that the EV is far more polluting than an ICE over the course of a 3 year(30k miles) average lease, you will eventually figure out why average lease time is more important than average life and why average life(8 years) is more important than scrappage life(at 13.9). Eventually, you will figure out why your author used 17 years to make the EV emissions palatable for you.

As for China, there is a huge push now in Europe and the US to bring production back and safeguard supply lines.

Why not move the production first and dictate stuff later? Why not upgrade the infrastructure and grid first and make the dictats later?
Why not have a proper conversation on EV emissions before you go ahead and triple car emissions while injuring the earth and the seas with chemical mines for ever with dictat?

[BeesKnee5]

As long as you acknowledge and understand that the EV is far more polluting than an ICE over the course of a 3 year(30k miles) average lease, you will eventually figure out why average lease is more important than average life and why average life(8 years) is more important than scrappage life(at 13.9). Eventually, you will figure out why your author used 17 years to make the emissions palatable for you.

A car lasts X years

It's emissions are the total of what it produces over x years.

Substitute x for

A . 3 lease
B. 8.4 average age on road
C. 13.9 average current scrappage
D. 17 expected life of today's EVs


A cars emmissions are
manufacture (fixed at time of production)
Fuel ( consumption throughout the life of the vehicle).

If the break even is 78k (it isn't as previously explained) then every km over 78k travelled by that vehicle is a reduction in emmissions.

If the break even is 25k then every km over 25k travelled by that vehicle is a reduction in emmissions.

Now providing the average car manages to travel more than (78k or 25k) then it's emissions will be lower than an ICE vehicle.

Now to make your claim stick you need to show that the average car dies before it's travelled 78k (50,000 miles), but the reality is you need to show UK cars die before 25k (16,000 miles).

If you can't then it's all just hot air.

Why not move the production first and dictate stuff later? Why not upgrade the infrastructure and grid first and make the dictats later?
Why not have a proper conversation on EV emissions before you go ahead and triple car emissions while injuring the earth and the seas with chemical mines for ever with dictat

Why not develop as the demand grows instead of having loads of infrastructure no one yet needs?

But your real question has its answers in COVID and the war in Ukraine. A realisation that global supply disruption can bring western economies to their knees.


What's always strange in these conversations is the ignoring that the rare earths for your phone's and electronics have been coming from these sources for decades, cobalt refining your oil has been going on for decades and will continue to do so even after batteries have phased out.

Oil pollution from tar pits, destruction of the the Okavango for oil, deforestation forpalm oil and biofuel all ignored. Because lithium bad - oil good.

[noemon]

convoluted babble

As I said previously:

Try to read and understand what the following means:

Volvo has assumed 120k thousand miles(or 200k km) as the average life-cycle of a car. Based on this assumption it has estimated break-even emission points with ICE cars at 110k(global mix), 77k(EU average mix) and 49k(100% renewables). In kilometres not miles.

Your author who is quite unhappy with Volvo's figures has made a different assumption, he has increased the assumed average life of a car to 17 years and its miles he has set as 25k the first year with 1k less per year thereafter for a grand total of 297k km or 200k miles. Based on these assumptions(which he even has the audacity to call "real-world corrections") he has revised the figures for EV's to break-even with ICE car emissions earlier than Volvo's.

The problem however with both Volvo and your author is that their base assumptions are Pure Fantasy.

Because in the real world, the average life-span of a car today in the UK is 8.4 years(the highest it has ever been since records began in 2000), even more tellingly the average miles for the cars on our streets are now 7400 miles per year, over the 8.4 years that brings the total to 62160 miles average lifespan. The average life-cycle of the cars on our streets is 8.4 years or 62160 miles. And that included a huge chucnk of ICE cars bought outright, when EV sales are 99.9% on 3-year leases as they are not actually affordable to buy.

Evidence:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motori ... 0in%202011.

https://www.britanniacarleasing.co.uk/n ... %20picture.

Now, if we take these real world figures and apply them to your author's and to Volvo's assumptions, then the break-even points for Volvo literally double, 220k(global energy mix), 154k(EU energy mix), 98k(100% renewables), for your "expert" author they quadruple++ his estimates.

But should we even take these real-world figures or is it even worse for EV's due to their max 8 year warranties and the 3-year average leases?

Food for thought.

Given that 62k are the average miles driven over their lifetime by the current cars on our streets, EV's will never overcome their emissions and will never reach the average miles required to make their emissions cleaner on the net, especially with lease companies penalizing heavily for any mile added after 30k.

[BeesKnee5]

You don't understand, it's ok. We get it.

"Given that 62000 are the average miles driven by the current cars on our streets, EV's will never overcome their emissions and will never reach the average miles required, especially with lease companies penalizing heavily for any mile added after 30k."

This failure of logic is just hilarious. Imagine thinking that because the average car on the road has traveled 62,000 miles they will never exceed this .

And even at 62,000 miles it's above your break even of 78,000 Kms

You broke your own argument. Trying to double it because you do not understand the difference between average age and average lifespan just makes it more amusing.

Do you truly think the average car won't manage to travel more than 62,000 miles and that this actually changes the break even?
It's just stunningly dumb

[noemon]

You don't understand, it's ok. We get it.

"Given that 62000 are the average miles driven by the current cars on our streets, EV's will never overcome their emissions and will never reach the average miles required, especially with lease companies penalizing heavily for any mile added after 30k."

This failure of logic is just hilarious. Imagine thinking that because the average car on the road has traveled 62,000 miles they will never exceed this.

Imagine arguing that you need to increase the total average mileage of all our cars, to save the planet. Imagine believing that a mileage reduction trend due to new car replacement that has been going on for 40 years will be reversed by none other than battery powered fridges on wheels with no ability to be repaired once the warranty expires.

And even at 62,000 miles it's above your break even of 78,000 Kms

You broke your own argument.

The break-even points in real-world British car figures are the following:

220k(global energy mix), 154k(EU energy mix), 98k(100% renewables).

If the entire planet goes 100% renewables and if we dictate minimum miles to be driven before a car can be disposed of, then we will reach the same emission levels as our current ICE cars.

Brilliant.

[BeesKnee5]

I'm done arguing, I'm laughing too hard.

Imagine being so desperate that you used the wrong statistic and then double the values.in the research because you think you know better.

Its dunning Kruger at its finest.!!

[noemon]

I'm done arguing, I'm laughing too hard.

Imagine being so desperate that you used the wrong statistic and then double the values.in the research because you think you know better.

Its dunning Kruger at its finest.!!

Imagine being unable to comprehend the difference between assumed life to get an advertising tagline and actual life as reported by the relevant authorities.

Imagine calling actual figures as "thinking you know better".

Yeah man, why use real world figures, when you can imagine any figures that will make sense for you.

[BeesKnee5]

Imagine being unable to comprehend the difference between assumed life to get an advertising tagline and actual life as reported by the relevant authorities.

Imagine calling actual figures as "thinking you know better".

Yeah man, why use real world figures, when you can imagine any figures that will make sense for you.

Real world figures.

The average car travels 200,000km before it goes to the knackers yard.

The average car on the road has traveled 100,000 km because some are NEWER and some are OLDER.

But you keep using the 100,000km figure because it'll keep me chuckling for a while longer.

[noemon]

Real world figures.

The average car travels 200,000km before it goes to the knackers yard.

The average car on the road has traveled 100,000 km because some are NEWER and some are OLDER.

But you keep using the 100,000km figure because it'll keep me chuckling for a while longer.

In your fantasy realm perhaps, not in Britain.

The official figures have been posted and reposted.

Read them carefully before you engage in rage posting again.