Why are people buying electric cars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68495
  • Start date Start date
ShinySideUp said:
I am unsure as to your position on climate change here. Are you saying that the climate is always changing and this isn't abnormal therefore there is nothing wrong with what we do or are you saying that climate change always happens (which it does) but we are influencing it far more quickly than would naturally occur? I suppose I am just asking if you are a climate change denier wherein you say humans are not adversely affecting the climate?

Just so my position is clear, I should state that I am sure in my own mind that we humans, merely by existing in such numbers, are causing rapid climate change and are on the cusp of destroying the world as we know it.
Click to expand...
You're contradicting yourself, you've admitted that climate change occurs but go on to call people who don't think humans have an adverse effect "deniers", that doesn't make sense, how can you simultaneously deny and accept that climate change is a thing ?

My position is that humans do a lot of selfish things and do cause harm to nature but I don't accept that humans are responsible for climate change. Plastic bottles are an example of the disgusting way in which humans are irresponsible.

This for example disgusts me.

download.jpg

Especially when it's possible to recycle 100%

www.invw.org

Rich countries are illegally exporting plastic trash to poor countries, data suggests

At the beginning of last year, 187 countries took steps to limit the export of plastic trash from wealthy to developing countries. It’s not working as well as they hoped. According to an analysis of global trade data by the nonprofit Basel Action Network, or BAN, violations of a
www.invw.org www.invw.org

Back to climate change, there were far bigger shifts in temperature etc. when the world population was much smaller so I disagree with your view on that but respect your opinion.
 
LeeRatters said:
I was thinking of 15-to-the-Gallon Lane ;)
Click to expand...

Yummmmmmm! Mrs Nod's XK was gorgeous but rather thirsty and a little unpredictable (!I winder which warning light will shine this week?...) Its replacement is less thirsty but drinks more petrol than my far larger Diesel does Diesel. The Leaf keeps as much pollution out of the city centre as possible and costs about 1/5th in fuel compared to the ICE cars.
 
Whenever i'm lucky enough to be right behind a Mustang or similar the windows come down and deep breaths are taken savouring the V power, if it's still on 5 star even better :ROFLMAO:
 
imattersuk said:
You're contradicting yourself, you've admitted that climate change occurs but go on to call people who don't think humans have an adverse effect "deniers", that doesn't make sense, how can you simultaneously deny and accept that climate change is a thing ?

My position is that humans do a lot of selfish things and do cause harm to nature but I don't accept that humans are responsible for climate change. Plastic bottles are an example of the disgusting way in which humans are irresponsible.

This for example disgusts me.

View attachment 403091

Especially when it's possible to recycle 100%

www.invw.org

Rich countries are illegally exporting plastic trash to poor countries, data suggests

At the beginning of last year, 187 countries took steps to limit the export of plastic trash from wealthy to developing countries. It’s not working as well as they hoped. According to an analysis of global trade data by the nonprofit Basel Action Network, or BAN, violations of a
www.invw.org www.invw.org

Back to climate change, there were far bigger shifts in temperature etc. when the world population was much smaller so I disagree with your view on that but respect your opinion.
Click to expand...

Not contradicting at all. I do not dispute the fact that climate changes occur on Earth, they always have, Snowball Earth, forests on Greenland, etc., but the latest changes in global temperature have occurred over 200 years, since the start of the industrial revolution, not the normal thousands of years The rate of global warming has doubled since 1980, Human activity has wiped out 60% of wildlife since the 1970s.

From an article in the Guardian (many other sources can be quoted) :--

“We are sleepwalking towards the edge of a cliff” said Mike Barrett, executive director of science and conservation at WWF. “If there was a 60% decline in the human population, that would be equivalent to emptying North America, South America, Africa, Europe, China and Oceania. That is the scale of what we have done.”

“This is far more than just being about losing the wonders of nature, desperately sad though that is,” he said. “This is actually now jeopardising the future of people. Nature is not a ‘nice to have’ – it is our life-support system.”

To deny climate change, global warming and the destruction of the life that exists on our one-and-only planet amounts to a crime against nature. We have done this and only we can sort it out. Ignoring the problem or saying it is just the normal way of things is tantamount to suicide, not for us, now, but the next generation and/or the one after that. Yes, we have a lot of plastics and other crap polluting our water but it is only going to bother us if we are still alive to see it and is only one of the many, many horrid things we have done, and are still doing, to the planet.

People should start by coming off TikTok and other social media bullcrap and start reading about real science, learn what is really happening. To quote the oft-ridiculed banner-carriers from TV programs "The End is Nigh" and you'd better believe it.
 
ShinySideUp said:
Not contradicting at all. I do not dispute the fact that climate changes occur on Earth, they always have, Snowball Earth, forests on Greenland, etc., but the latest changes in global temperature have occurred over 200 years, since the start of the industrial revolution, not the normal thousands of years The rate of global warming has doubled since 1980, Human activity has wiped out 60% of wildlife since the 1970s.

From an article in the Guardian (many other sources can be quoted) :--

“We are sleepwalking towards the edge of a cliff” said Mike Barrett, executive director of science and conservation at WWF. “If there was a 60% decline in the human population, that would be equivalent to emptying North America, South America, Africa, Europe, China and Oceania. That is the scale of what we have done.”

“This is far more than just being about losing the wonders of nature, desperately sad though that is,” he said. “This is actually now jeopardising the future of people. Nature is not a ‘nice to have’ – it is our life-support system.”

To deny climate change, global warming and the destruction of the life that exists on our one-and-only planet amounts to a crime against nature. We have done this and only we can sort it out. Ignoring the problem or saying it is just the normal way of things is tantamount to suicide, not for us, now, but the next generation and/or the one after that. Yes, we have a lot of plastics and other crap polluting our water but it is only going to bother us if we are still alive to see it and is only one of the many, many horrid things we have done, and are still doing, to the planet.

People should start by coming off TikTok and other social media bullcrap and start reading about real science, learn what is really happening. To quote the oft-ridiculed banner-carriers from TV programs "The End is Nigh" and you'd better believe it.
Click to expand...
You've just done it again, it's possible to acknowledge climate change but not agree that it's man made, how can you then describe that as denying ? It's purely a disagreement on the cause of climate change not a denial.
 
You are playing with semantics. Climate change denying is not denying that climate changes, it is denying that it is humans to blame.

This definition: from Wikipedia (other sources will say a similar thing):
*****************************
Climate change denial (also global warming denial or climate denial) is the pseudoscientific[6] dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[7][8][9]

Climate change denial includes doubts to the extent of how much climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[10][11][12] To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action.[13] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[14][15] pseudoscience,[16] or propaganda.[17]
*******************************
My red highlighting.
 
Nod said:
Yummmmmmm! Mrs Nod's XK was gorgeous but rather thirsty and a little unpredictable (!I winder which warning light will shine this week?...) Its replacement is less thirsty but drinks more petrol than my far larger Diesel does Diesel. The Leaf keeps as much pollution out of the city centre as possible and costs about 1/5th in fuel compared to the ICE cars.
Click to expand...

Not long after I finished the restoration we went to a place just up in Gloucester. Slow motorway drive up and a steady A road drive back. About 75 miles all in & I don't think I could have driven any softer! I managed 23 mpg :) What it's like blasting around the A/B roads I don't know but the twin 48 Webers certainly drink! The petrol Focus is around 35 MPG probably 80% short trip urban driving. I can't remember the last time I drove anywhere near the city centre :)
 
ShinySideUp said:
You are playing with semantics. Climate change denying is not denying that climate changes, it is denying that it is humans to blame.

This definition: from Wikipedia (other sources will say a similar thing):
*****************************
Climate change denial (also global warming denial or climate denial) is the pseudoscientific[6] dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[7][8][9]

Climate change denial includes doubts to the extent of how much climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[10][11][12] To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action.[13] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[14][15] pseudoscience,[16] or propaganda.[17]
*******************************
My red highlighting.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia....hmm

I could go on there and change it to say the moon is made of cheese and has contaminated the earth's atmosphere causing climate change, it's hardly a credible source.

I'm firmly in the esteemed Dr David Bellamy's camp i'm afraid.
 
imattersuk said:
Wikipedia....hmm

I could go on there and change it to say the moon is made of cheese and has contaminated the earth's atmosphere causing climate change, it's hardly a credible source.

I'm firmly in the esteemed Dr David Bellamy's camp i'm afraid.
Click to expand...
I quote Wikipedia but I could have quoted any number of newspapers, journals or scientific tomes. The Wikipedia entry was the first one I looked at that gave a definition of a climate change denier, the definition is correct no matter which section of media you look at. Here is a very short list of online sites that give the same or similar definition:

Merriam Webster
Cambridge Dictionary
I need not continue, there are many more. Even the Pope:
The Pope

However, no matter what I say, however many sources I find to show human causes for climate change, no matter what evidence I bring forth, there are some who will try to ridicule, deny, obfuscate or blatantly ignore the evidence in favour of the contrary. I have read the reports and I will believe them until they can be proved wrong, as a good scientist does, I have the scientific evidence to back up my statements, I have the evidence of my own eyes, but I realise that I can never change your mind with any of this. Deniers 'know' they are right and everyone else is wrong and no amount of contrary statements of evidence will change their minds. You are not the first climate change denier I have met and it is with regret that I say I could not change the other people's minds either. Only when it visibly affects you and your ilk will you finally believe, but I fear that by then, it will all be too late.

I did read up on the late David Bellamy and a man, once respected in the scientific community, condemned himself to obscurity with his [subsequently retracted] remarks that glaciers were not shrinking but actually growing and when, the year before, he concluded that climate change was 'poppycock', despite so much evidence to the contrary. With his statements he put himself in the same category as ex-tv personality David Icke, who, incidentally, also does not believe climate change is happening but does believe that the Royal Family and various world leaders are alien lizards from another planet controlling Earthlings for their own gain.

You may reply to this if you wish but I'll not continue as I have to spend the next few years waiting for David Icke, Donald Trump and other climate change deniers to discover the truth for themselves, I would pray (if I believed in a god) it is in time to save this little blue world.


The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Being rude yet again
ShinySideUp said:
I have to disagree, but then you knew I would.

I live here, in the centre of the circle.:

View attachment 403084

My nearest garages are at A B and C, none of them have electric charging points. My front door is eight feet from the main road through the village, I have no driveway or off-road parking, so cannot charge at home -- what else can I say about me not wanting to use an electric car. As for 'me, me' :- half my large garden is turned over to wilding for the birds, animals and insects, I have rescued hedgehogs and over-wintered them, my dogs are rescue dogs and over the years, I have rescued dozens of guinea pigs and rabbits, building special housing for them so they can live out a decent life, even the goldfish in my pond were rescued from a guy who was about to chuck them on the lawn as he didn't want them and I had to dig a pond especially for them. I am a member of the Dog's Trust, the RSPB and The National Trust, I am so far from being 'me, me' that I can't even see 'me, me' in the distance, so I'm sure you'll forgive my one indiscretion about keeping my diesel vehicle on the road and decrying the false dawn that is Electric Vehicles.
Click to expand...


yes but you are not normal
in fact you go out of your way on posts like this to say how perfect and special you are
you live in the boonies with a shed full of tyres for your pappies F150
you are the equivelent of a tennessee redneck
you even boast of a diesel generator in case of power cuts
for f***s sake man grow up and join the real world
who live in urban areas like probably 80% of the uk with drives and supermarkets and running water
youre becoming an embarresment
 
imattersuk said:
Wikipedia....hmm

I could go on there and change it to say the moon is made of cheese and has contaminated the earth's atmosphere causing climate change, it's hardly a credible source.

I'm firmly in the esteemed Dr David Bellamy's camp i'm afraid.
Click to expand...
Yup, you are.

Meanwhile, we are pretty much at the end of times.

Enjoy.
 
I mean, I'd be happy to point out why that article is pure bovine scatology, but it feels like I've missed the fun and we've moved on to generalised jingoism and "the world will still be here when I'm dead" denial so....
 
Aren’t most electric cars either on PCPs or company purchases?
they The either can be handed back in in three years time or in a company car example are bought almost purely for tax reasons.
As a private purchaser the market would need to be much more mature with thriving secondhand scene and battery replacement/repair facilities. Not to mention insurance costs coming down.
 
JonathanRyan said:
,,, and "the world will still be here when I'm dead" denial so....
Click to expand...
In the absence of the sun going nova or a collision with a very large asteroid, it will indeed.
 
ShinySideUp said:
I am unsure as to your position on climate change here. Are you saying that the climate is always changing and this isn't abnormal therefore there is nothing wrong with what we do or are you saying that climate change always happens (which it does) but we are influencing it far more quickly than would naturally occur? I suppose I am just asking if you are a climate change denier wherein you say humans are not adversely affecting the climate?

Just so my position is clear, I should state that I am sure in my own mind that we humans, merely by existing in such numbers, are causing rapid climate change and are on the cusp of destroying the world as we know it.
Click to expand...

imattersuk said:
You're contradicting yourself, you've admitted that climate change occurs but go on to call people who don't think humans have an adverse effect "deniers", that doesn't make sense, how can you simultaneously deny and accept that climate change is a thing ?

My position is that humans do a lot of selfish things and do cause harm to nature but I don't accept that humans are responsible for climate change. Plastic bottles are an example of the disgusting way in which humans are irresponsible.

This for example disgusts me.

View attachment 403091

Especially when it's possible to recycle 100%

www.invw.org

Rich countries are illegally exporting plastic trash to poor countries, data suggests

At the beginning of last year, 187 countries took steps to limit the export of plastic trash from wealthy to developing countries. It’s not working as well as they hoped. According to an analysis of global trade data by the nonprofit Basel Action Network, or BAN, violations of a
www.invw.org www.invw.org

Back to climate change, there were far bigger shifts in temperature etc. when the world population was much smaller so I disagree with your view on that but respect your opinion.
Click to expand...


Nobody denies that the climate has always changed. However the evidence is overwhelming that the changes we are now seeing are so much faster than have occurred before and that they are linked to carbon and other emissions.
 
jerry12953 said:
Nobody denies that the climate has always changed. However the evidence is overwhelming that the changes we are now seeing are so much faster than have occurred before and that they are linked to carbon and other emissions.
Click to expand...
How do we know it’s faster ? Who was recording data in the ice age or even 300 years ago ?
 
imattersuk said:
This for example disgusts me.

View attachment 403091

Especially when it's possible to recycle 100%
Click to expand...
Why does it disgust you?
That photo looks like China.
In China, lots of plastic bottles are discarded, mainly because it's very hot in summer and most people only drink bottled water. There's an army of people who collect every bit of scrap and sell it to people higher up the chain, and everything gets tidied away very quickly, and everything is recycled.
 
Mr Bump said:
yes but you are not normal
in fact you go out of your way on posts like this to say how perfect and special you are
you live in the boonies with a shed full of tyres for your pappies F150
you are the equivelent of a tennessee redneck
you even boast of a diesel generator in case of power cuts
for f***s sake man grow up and join the real world
who live in urban areas like probably 80% of the uk with drives and supermarkets and running water
youre becoming an embarresment
Click to expand...

Did we have a little too much wine last night?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
In the absence of the sun going nova or a collision with a very large asteroid, it will indeed.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. The only difference of opinion appears to be whether it matters what happens when you are no longer here.
 
ShinySideUp said:
Did we have a little too much wine last night?
Click to expand...
Your'll have to wait a few days for a reply.
All those little misdemeanor points he's collected, have now added up to 3 days off.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Yes exactly. The only difference of opinion appears to be whether it matters what happens when you are no longer here.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely on the "it doesn't" team.
 
woof woof said:
IMVHO charging points should by law have to accept major credit/debit cards and maybe even... cash... and cables and plugs should be standardised.

snip
Click to expand...

They do and they are.

As of a year or more back all new rapid chargers installed must have contactless payment options built in. The law changes later in 2024 to All chargers over 8kw per hour.

Charging connections are standardised, Type 2 for AC and CCS for DC. Chademo is being phased out. There is a CCS+ connection coming out which is backwards compatible.
 
ShinySideUp said:
I have just been reading an article on the Which? website with regard to the use of electric car charging points and if I was ever thinking about buying an electric car (I'm not) I would thinking again. If you do short journeys and you have a home charging point then I see little reason not to own an electric car but move away from that little niche and the world of car charging becomes something out of Escher's wildest imaginings.

According to the article, there are at least 60 different companies offering charge facilities and each one of them has an app that, for the most part, you have to use before you can charge your electric vehicle. There are a myriad of charging rates, speaking both electrically and financially, and you have to know how much charge your car can take and not use a charger that supplies more than that because you will be paying for a charge-rate you may not be able to use, plus depriving a car-owner whose car CAN use that charge rate for using that charge port. The rates are so high that an average diesel car is at least as cheap to run and often cheaper. There are different connectors depending on your car and a choice of AC or DC outlets and apparently, if it wasn't for the EU, there would be more connectors than there are.

It seems to me, from reading the article, that if you own anything other than a Tesla, which seems to be much more organised, you are setting yourself up for a world of pain if you go down the pure electric route. Things would have to get a lot more simple before I even considered buying an electric car and I'll not go into the rise in 'charge-rage' that seems to be cropping up more and more in the press and social media.

I think I'll wait for hydrogen fuel cells to make their mark and quietly run my 70+ mpg diesel until that time arrives.
Click to expand...

This is the problem that arises when you read Which articles. Which are not exactly unbiased and not above some creative writing, remember Which's sole object is to sell Which.
You view the EVverse from your own bubble which is natural and your knowledge is incomplete, again natural. If you want to find out about how EV driving works, ask an EV driver.
Yes there are (in England) loads of independent companies who have their own equipment and charge their own rates. but there's not a huge disparity in rates, as with petrol, if you charge more than the guy down the road, he will get the business.
The EV market is similar to the beginning of the petrol car market a hundred years ago but with a far faster take up. This lead initially to a plethora of apps and rfid cards and small companies starting and failing to take hold.
Enter the Government (eventually) and regulation. The regulations are and have been for some time that all new rapid chargers must have contactless payment options, the rule changes next year to read "all chargers of 8kw or over"

and you have to know how much charge your car can take and not use a charger that supplies more than that because you will be paying for a charge-rate you may not be able to use,]
Click to expand...
This is simply utter nonsense.

apparently
Click to expand...
Is the one word you have used that's accurate

Scotland is and has been from the start far better organised. The Scottish government saw the need and instituted a nationwide single umbrella network that used one rfid card for all chargers.

Do I know what I'm talking about?... I have driven over sixty thousand electric miles in the last two years, so yes I do.

I reiterrate Magazines/organisations like Which exist to make a profit for their owners/shareholders and are more than willing to obfuscate the truth in attaining that goal.
 
Steep said:
This is simply utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

A simple 'I disagree' would be rather more polite, however, in answer to your point here is the quote from Which? Magazine:



Do you want to pay more money for the same amount of electricity? No? Then you need to know your car’s maximum charging capabilities. Unfortunately, that data isn’t always handily available, meaning most EV drivers have no idea what their charging rates are.
You plug your car into a 50kW charger. It takes around 45 minutes to get the battery in your electric vehicle (EV) from 20 to 100%. This works out at around 19p per mile.
But the week after, you come across a new 350kW charger. Being seven times more powerful sounds incredibly convenient.
You eagerly plug your car in but, to your surprise, it still takes 45 minutes to charge your EV from 20-100%, except now it has cost you £37. That means you’re now paying 24.3p per mile - more expensive than your typical petrol or diesel car.
All you’ve done is pay more for the same amount of electricity.
Nothing has gone wrong here. It’s just the car in this case can draw only a maximum of 50kW DC. That means if you plug your car into a 50kW, 150kW or 350kW charger, it will only ever draw a maximum of 50kW.
Now you know this, it's unlikely you'd choose a charger that is more powerful and more expensive.
But that’s the issue. Most electric car owners do not know their car’s maximum charge rates. When we asked EV owners to name their maximum charging rates, 61% didn’t even attempt to answer, and many that did got it wrong.
We believe this is a problem that’s easily solvable by manufacturers adding the maximum AC and DC charge rates to the cars themselves. Much in the same way that when refuelling a non-electric car, the fuel flap often tells you if you need petrol or diesel.

I can only report on what I read. I am not an electric car expert and my knowledge of car chargers is, and will remain, negligible since I don't have one, So if Which? have got it wrong then you should take it up with them and not shoot the messenger. Perhaps it is you that doesn't know, have you considered that?
 
ShinySideUp said:
Perhaps it is you that doesn't know, have you considered that?
Click to expand...
A distinct possibility, given the state of the art in this field.

When there is too little information or, as in this case, too much information, there is a tendency to fill the space available with that which pleases and ignore that which does not. This has been the origin of many disasters in the past and no doubt will cause yet more chaos in the future. Too many people seem unable to write or utter the words "I don't know", when that would be the most appropriate statement to make.
 
ShinySideUp said:
A simple 'I disagree' would be rather more polite, however, in answer to your point here is the quote from Which? Magazine:



Do you want to pay more money for the same amount of electricity? No? Then you need to know your car’s maximum charging capabilities. Unfortunately, that data isn’t always handily available, meaning most EV drivers have no idea what their charging rates are.
You plug your car into a 50kW charger. It takes around 45 minutes to get the battery in your electric vehicle (EV) from 20 to 100%. This works out at around 19p per mile.
But the week after, you come across a new 350kW charger. Being seven times more powerful sounds incredibly convenient.
You eagerly plug your car in but, to your surprise, it still takes 45 minutes to charge your EV from 20-100%, except now it has cost you £37. That means you’re now paying 24.3p per mile - more expensive than your typical petrol or diesel car.
All you’ve done is pay more for the same amount of electricity.
Nothing has gone wrong here. It’s just the car in this case can draw only a maximum of 50kW DC. That means if you plug your car into a 50kW, 150kW or 350kW charger, it will only ever draw a maximum of 50kW.
Now you know this, it's unlikely you'd choose a charger that is more powerful and more expensive.
But that’s the issue. Most electric car owners do not know their car’s maximum charge rates. When we asked EV owners to name their maximum charging rates, 61% didn’t even attempt to answer, and many that did got it wrong.
We believe this is a problem that’s easily solvable by manufacturers adding the maximum AC and DC charge rates to the cars themselves. Much in the same way that when refuelling a non-electric car, the fuel flap often tells you if you need petrol or diesel.

I can only report on what I read. I am not an electric car expert and my knowledge of car chargers is, and will remain, negligible since I don't have one, So if Which? have got it wrong then you should take it up with them and not shoot the messenger. Perhaps it is you that doesn't know, have you considered that?
Click to expand...
This is not the first time I've read this, so I suspect that on this occasion, rather than Which making it up, they are simply copying from an incorrect source.

There are such things as "stay charges" but in general a public charger charges by the amount of electricity delivered, not by time connected. Exactly like a petrol pump does (though in their case for is limited by other factors than the vehicle)

I will politely point out that their article is incorrect in this respect and that while the maximum charge rate is interesting, it does not generally affect the cost of charging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top