The departure of Arrival

[Bo’sunParticipant @bosun58570]

Well said Robin & Kiwi Bloke.

Surely, our tiny island is having little effect on the overall issue of “global warming” or “climate change”, or what ever you want to call it, compared to the ROW.

Until the likes of China, India, Russia, USA etc, realy come to the party (in a meaningful way), we’re probably wasting our time and resources with little effect.  We might be able to help a little by reigning in our insatiable desire for cheap Chinese tat.  Christmas and Halloween are two examples that spring readily to mind.  Yes, on the face of it, electric vehicles appear to be a reasonable idea, but has anybody realy looked at the “whole of life” costs?  Manufacture, operation and then disposal.

As model Engineers we’re also partially guilty, for buying cheap (relatively) Chinese machine tools and ancillaries.  But again, I suspect t’s probably a relatively small amount.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

Some of the problems causing EV take up to falter, and resale values to fall are;

High initial purchase price

Short range, compared to ICE vehicles, leading to longer journey times.

Seemingly, more prone to spontaneous combustion.

I run a small petrol car, far cheaper than an EV (And according to a recemt newspaper article, its resale value has just increased by 22%!)

It takes abouit 10  minutes to brim the tamk, and I can then drive 140 odd miles each way to volunteer, and still have plenty of range to spare, when I get home. I do not wish to add another 40 minutes to a journey which already takes three hours,mon stop, barring accidents.

Today, I read that the ASA have criticised BMW for claiming a car to be “Emissions free” , becuas eno allowance has been made for the emissions caused in making the car (greater than an IC powered equivalent?) and in charging the battery.

When EVs have had a century, or at least, many years of development the price perfor,amce and durability may match that of the old fashioned fossil fuelled vehicles, that they replaced.

Back in the early 1900s, the internal combustion engined vehicle was subject to the same objections, and look how far we have come by now! When I was a child 6:1 was consider a high compression ratio, now I drive a 11:1 petrol. Specific fuel consumptions, oil control, blow by, and durability have improved almost beyond belief.

In due course EVs will follow the same path.

Howard

 

[vintage engineerParticipant @vintageengineer]

All EV’s do is hide the pollution that is created in their production and scrapping of the vehicles. They are doing more damage to the plane t than IC engines ever have.

[jimmy bParticipant @jimmyb]

Anyone interested in this should have a look at them on Companies House!

 

Jim

[jimmy b]

On jimmy b Said:

Anyone interested in this should have a look at them on Companies House!

 

Jim

… from which I note some very recent transfers

It will be interesting to follow the EY activity

https://www.ey.com/en_uk/arrival-uk-ltd-and-arrival-automotive-uk-limited

MichaelG.

.

Edit: __ idle curiosity led me here:

https://www.ey.com/en_gl/people/alan-hudson

 

[jimmy b]

On jimmy b Said:

Anyone interested in this should have a look at them on Companies House!

 

Jim

On vintage engineer Said:

All EV’s do is hide the pollution that is created in their production and scrapping of the vehicles. They are doing more damage to the plane t than IC engines ever have.

Good point vintage engineer.  How convenient to forget about that when extoling the virtues of EV’s.

[Bo’sun]

On Bo’sun Said:

On vintage engineer Said:

All EV’s do is hide the pollution that is created in their production and scrapping of the vehicles. They are doing more damage to the plane t than IC engines ever have.

Good point vintage engineer.  How convenient to forget about that when extoling the virtues of EV’s.

Now boys, this won’t do!  Vintage claims that EVs “are doing more damage to the plane t than IC engines ever have.” and it must be true because Bo’sun agrees with him,

I put it to Vintage and Bo’sun that this claim is nonsense, and challenge them to prove it.  What’s the evidence please?

Elsewhere in thread Robin claims “Most atmospheric CO2 comes from the tectonic subduction of limestone, so there must be some natural process converting CO2 back into limestone ready for its’ next time around.”   Tectonic subduction eh?  I challenge that one too – again, what’s the evidence please Robin.

When the scientific consensus overwhelmingly agrees what the problem is, and the scientific models successfully predict serious real-world weather effects over decades, and modern survey methods tell us accurately how little fossil fuel is left, and we know the world economy depends on cheap energy, surely it’s time to get real and tackle the issues? Hoping problems will go away on their own rarely works, and yesterdays answers can’t be expected to fix tomorrow’s problems.

My advice, never surrender.  When faced with a problem, get stuck in. Never freeze in the headlights.

Dave

 

[Bo’sunParticipant @bosun58570]

It just appears strange that the “whole of life” cost for an EV doesn’t appear to get a mention.  Of course I stand to be corrected.  Seems mighty convenient.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Further to Howard’s mention of the ASA and BMW

The ruling has been published:

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/bmw–uk–ltd-a23-1209400-bmw–uk–ltd.html

… and it makes interesting reading.

MichaelG.

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Without wishing to get involved in politics (or religion) on this forum, a few things to strike me as fair for discussion.
One being  Hitchens’s razor, (Christopher, not Peter) which proposes;
“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

In an attempt to avoid falling foul of that; in this case discussing the likelihood of fires in EVs, I came across this piece of research a little while ago following a similar discussion with some ex-workmates over lunch.

It seems that Battery EVs, are the least likely to catch fire, with Hybrid vehicles most likely. ICE fall somewhere in the middle.
The research came from a US insurance company, who’s agenda is likely to be about assessing actual risk, rather than promoting arguments for or against EV usage.
There is a link in the third paragraph of this article

Certainly when on fire, they are harder to extinguish. There’s been some interesting experiments using supercooled brine, ideally pumped directly into the battery, as discussed in this video from an Australian motoring commentator; I’ve no idea how “Expert” he is, but it’s worth watching, even if only for the included video clips from elsewhere.
You might want to fast forward to about 17:30 or so and again to about 26:00; and even to cover the ears of younger viewers. 😉

See also Part 1 of a series in The Guardian, along with the subsequent ones of course.

Bill

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

In such debates as here EV v ICE the two sides usually pick partial stats that suit themselves. The old adage holds true that there are three sides to every argument – the third being the truth.

In a US state where their major electricity generation is still coal-fired then EV’s are not going to be low polluters. In California the opposite holds true with an overabundance of solar generation.

Quite apart from any arguments over convenience and range – both of which are solved by those with off-street parking/home charging and by the addition of more and more fast route chargers, the simple facts as pointed out by Michael is that we need an alternative to oil. Yes, biofuels may do the job but any ICE will also be chucking out other non CO2 pollutants and the health costs in crowded cities.

For a true accounting of pollution and ownership costs one should include recycling. Automobiles are actually recycled quite efficiently, the major difference being the battery chemistry in EV’s and that is being worked on and will be large scale in due course. Small scale effective recycling already exists, it’s just a matter of will and economics.

Indeed, one should widen any honest debate to look at the costs and human miseries associated with the oil industry and the conflicts that rage over it. And to be fair one should also look at the recycling costs and issues of electricity generation – those turbine blades that get land-filled after 20 years, what’s going to happen to all the worn out solar panels etc. Equally look at sea based oil platforms at end of life, pollution hazards from spillage, refinery and storage fires and so forth. A proper accounting would be difficult.

One should also look at the realities of car ownership. Talk of the troubles with long journeys may suit the anti EV lobby but the reality for most folk is that such journeys are uncommon. If one is driving  3-400 miles per day then current EV’s may be an issue unless one can use recharge times productively with emails and correspondence and calls. Most folk drive short journeys with perhaps one long run monthly and for them the benefit of cheap home recharging leads to low running costs to offset against the higher initial price. At the moment the problem does persist for folk without off-street parking but another reality is that the majority of such folk will be worse off financially anyway and unlikely to be buying new cars and running 8+yr old ICE second hand stuff. That will remain available for a couple of decades yet while the charging infrastructure gets resolved.

Unless you’ve used an EV for some years, all you can bring to the debate is your prejudices from whatever side of the debate you follow in the media.

Has anyone considered that it might be even more economical to use simpler designed vehicles.. updated versions from the 50’s without any of the modern unnecessary bits like electric windows and chip based electronics so that they could be simply repaired and kept running almost indefinitely, like those old cars in Cuba which beat a modern car for environmental friendliness on the grounds that the users haven’t bought 20 new cars in that lifetime.

pgk

[noel shelley]

On noel shelley Said:

Living in a village of 300 homes and NO 3 phase power where a short journey to the shops is 40 miles and I may have to do a round trip of 400 miles in the next week, The attraction of an EV has yet to be proved and many are thinking twice about buying one !

That this has happened is no surprise ! Noel.

Worth remembering that the the urban population of England is 47 mill while rural population is 9.7 mill. Of those in a rural village rather than town its 4.4 mill. So for every person in your situation there are 10 who live stacked on top of each other and 1 who’s on the fence depending on their transport habits.

As a disgusting city dweller I like my micro electric vehicles. Get myself about on two wheels, take battery out and throw on trike to haul 1/2 pallet of slate few miles, tip trike up in garden after so it takes up floor space of a small desk and use its expensive components back in the bike. Power consumption is squared to velocity or something so sub 30mph urban driving lasts a long way. Wouldn’t want to do it on a national speed limit country road.

Crunched the numbers on getting a ICE or EV of car or van persuasion and worked out I don’t need one often enough for it to be viable. The 4kw power Piaggio Ape conversion project wedged on the font garden being a hobby rather than serious decision.

 

[mike robinson 2Participant @mikerobinson2]

I believe the original funding for Arrrival was from a Russian oligarch, he had a start up in St. Petersberg

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

Perhaps, in between trying to solve global warming single handedly in UK, we should each use whatever means of transport is most affordable and convenient, whether push bike or 44 ton truck.

An 850 mini is not the ideal prime mover for a 20 ton load. My little Japanese puddle jumper is specifically forbidden from towing!

Again, horses for courses.

Howard

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

Noel’s comment about CAV rotary pumps breaking shafts being due to lub starvation.

NO rotary injection pump likes water in the fuel, because water is poor lubricant, compared to gas oil. With 1 or 2 micron clearances, the slightest pressure inbalance will cause metal to metal contact; and with pressures of 600 bar and upwards, sieizure is inevitable, and immediate.

Have even seen this happen with high injection pressures on In Line pumps. The Bosch MW, supposedly good for 750 bar had to have a major redesign when Renault and Perkins started tuning the hydraulics to get 1,000 bar at the injector, to meet emissions.  The pump end was 750 bar, but the pressure waves raised the injector end towards the levels used in common rail systems.

At 600 bar, a 6mm OD x 1.5 mm bore pipe starts to expand significantly, at 1500 bar it definitely will, and fuel compressibility also becomes a factor in timing the start of injection exactly.

Howard

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Robin –

” Most atmospheric CO2 comes from the tectonic subduction of limestone, so there must be some natural process converting CO2 back into limestone ready for its’ next time around. That would seem to be important. ”

Pardon?

Most subduction (the word “tectonic” is surplus here) is of ocean-floor plate below other oceanic crust or below continents, so basalt under basalt or granite respectively.

However that does drag wet sea-floor sediment down with it, and that is source of the gases and water-vapour from the resulting volcanoes. Not limestone! The water seems also to act as a flux, helping some of the subducted rock to melt into magma that oozes its way upwards to erupt as volcanoes or solidify underground as “batholiths” (lit. “deep rock”) such as Central Cornwall.

Even where the heat and pressure of this “igneous intrusion” metamorphoses any nearby limestone into marble that rock is still calcium-carbonate, although carbonaceous materials trapped within it in its sedimentary deposition phase are distilled out, sometimes leaving the marble as nearly pure CaCO3.

Crustal-rifting volcanoes (e.g Iceland) and Mantle-plume volcanoes (e.g. Hawaii) are all of igneous, Mantle rock, primarily basalt, with little gas.

…..

 

As for your proposed “golden age” of using all the coal we can still extract until it’s all gone, the danger of it was recognised about 100 years ago but largely ignored. I suppose the limit was predicted to be so far ahead, in an era of assuming we can “tame Nature” if only we throw enough Scientists and Engineers at her, that few would have believed it. That was when coal was the primary industrial, transport and domestic fuel and chemical feedstock, and calculated on contemporary reserves and consumption rates.

And when it’s gone, it’s gone: oil first, then coal. Ummm, then what?

…

 

Yes we do need understand natural mechanisms, but so we can understand just how much of a mess Man has been making of them, not just in the last 2 or 3 Centuries but for some thousands of years. Not the climate, no, for most of that time, but certainly in other ways; steadily growing since the dawn of settled agriculture.

Indeed, a huge amount of research into the Quaternary* climates has already been done, and continues, so we can determine what the Earth might have done if Nature had had it all her own way, then determine Mankind’s influence and try to forecast future effects.

These are not easy questions to answer, and finding suitable, practicable responses is far harder still, but ignoring those and wanting to use the rest of the petroleum and coal just because they are there, will not help anyone.

We have been burning these for a long time, but have they brought a “Golden Age”, and what sort of “Age” will follow them?

—–

*Essentially encompassing the present Ice Age so far, and the evolution of our own species.

[Author]

Posts