Oh they probably can. It depends how sub your urban is and what your mobility is like. For example I frequently drive to the co-op. But it's only a 15 minute walk or 5 minute cycle. Just convenience and storage space. If you moved to a summoned self-drive fleet more people would walk those sorts of distances instead of driving.
Are we being forced to go electric?
- Thread starter gavroche
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Or just have an exclusion zone for vehicles in town centres ? Why the need for a summoned self driving vehicle ? It’s not fixing what we are talking about here ? I’d probably hate it but I’d get used it !
I guess it depends on your definition of News and Current Affairs. I would argue that the energy situation we are in now is both. However, seeing as toys are remaining in prams perhaps it is not the NACA of old.
Fuel and excise duty must be replaced with new tax, MPs say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60251046
It’s funny , in about 20yrs we will no doubt be in the same position if not worse but it’s not the price of diesel or petrol but the price of kW hrs
It’s funny , in about 20yrs we will no doubt be in the same position if not worse but it’s not the price of diesel or petrol but the price of kW hrs
ClichéGuevara
Legendary Member
- Location
- Kingston upon the River Hull
The announcement of the move to EV's meant that emission reductions that were planned, are simply not being pushed through to the user, as there is no point for the manufacturers.
The end result is that until we're all electric, tail pipe emissions are liable to be higher than they could have been, and the move to EV's is liable to result in higher levels of other atmospheric gasses due to the overall interactions, replacing one problem with another. All at quite a cost to the economy and household budgets.
BrumJim
Forum Stalwart (won't take the hint and leave...)
- Location
- Selly Oak, Birmingham
I'm all for travel broading the mind, but not convinced that a girly party of 10 in Dubai really fits that description.
fossyant
Ride It Like You Stole It!
- Location
- South Manchester
And don't mention the Yanks, EV sales aren't great as a percentage.
ClichéGuevara
Legendary Member
- Location
- Kingston upon the River Hull
It gets worse when you look at how the figures are calculated. A change in a couple of the factors or a correction to the original estimates pretty much drawn from google maps, and a region can show they've achieved a reduction even if nothing actually changes.
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
I don't understand why you believe either that they will do nothing for congestion, or that it will mean fewer jobs.
Assuming we are talking about rentable self-driving cars, people will undoubtedly take fewer journeys with them than they would if they had a car sat permanently on their drive. They are never going to be quite as convenient for spur of the moment short trips.
And it will only reduce jobs if the people using them would otherwise have used a human driven taxi.
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
They will almost certainly be cheaper to summon and use than human driven taxis.
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
Because most people aren't prepared to forgo the speed and comfort of doing it by car.
We on this forum are a very unusual demographic.
cougie uk
Guru
Is there an English version of this ?
All petrol and diesel gives off nasty exhaust fumes. We know that not all electric is generated cleanly - but this can increase and has done massively over the last few years. Already you are getting people charging their car off their own solar panels - and using renewable energy tariffs.
ClichéGuevara
Legendary Member
- Location
- Kingston upon the River Hull
If you struggled with that, I'm not sure there's much point going too deeply into it, but as just one example.
NO2 concentrations were on average −20.1% [13.7–30.4%] lower during the lockdown. However, this benefit was offset by amplified O3 pollution of +8.5% [3.7–11.0%] in the same period. The consistency in the direction of change indicates that the NO2 reductions and O3 increases were ubiquitous over Vienna. Ox concentrations increased slightly by +4.3% [1.8–6.4%], suggesting that a significant part of the drops in NO2 was compensated by gains in O3. Accordingly, 82% of lockdown days with lowered NO2 were accompanied by 81% of days with amplified O3
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749121007351
Why don't we have world peace? Why do people break the law? Why cannot I stop eating cake when I'm trying to lose weight?
The pursit of perfection is often the biggest hinderance to real progress.
ClichéGuevara
Legendary Member
- Location
- Kingston upon the River Hull
An argument I have heard, and I can see the reasoning, is why should people in the urban area pay Council Tax for roads they don't use, and travel by bike so that there is more space for those that choose to live out of town to drive on? I guess you could argue both sides are being selfish.
I think it's also worth contemplating why people are being pushed in the direction they are, as sometimes focusing on one issue can miss the whole bigger picture.
In my view, the whole strategy is flawed as especially in the case of CO2 it is based on data that is far from robust, as any examination of the methodology quickly shows. There is also an argument that greater gains can be made if the focus was on other emissions.
There is no doubt the climate is changing, it always has, and always will, and there is no doubt we need to use finite resources with extreme care, but the current focus creates areas for doubt and confusion, as despite the claims that will undoubtedly follow this and are for another thread, or more likely NACA, the figures for emissions are very rough and ready, and extremely unlikely to ever show a clear causal link to any monitored values. A tweak of a few factors in that estimate can solve it, or make it appear much worse, without anything actually changing in reality.
In my view, a more robust and less arguable and therefore more readily acceptable approach would have been to focus heavily on the need for sustainable living and lifestyles, and incorporating planning for resilience to the changes and not get dragged in to the 'science' especially if the information pushed out can be challenged, and the historic claims have almost all shown to be very wide of the mark.
I think in the future, many will look at the cost of living, and the other health and societal impacts they have, and look back bemused at how it came about.
Like it or not, and without down playing the harm, fossil fuels have helped many areas of the world improve their life expectancy, health and quality of life tremendously since its wider use, and it has also helped make the world far, far safer from natural disasters, and that often gets ignored in the estimates and plans, which is a big risk to the large numbers of people that have yet to see the full benefits.
- Status
