Looking for a more environmentally friendly car

fjon

I'm looking to see what options I have in replacing my 12 year old diesel car.
I would like something that's less polluting, but also has enough space for 2 kids and a decent boot.
I live in a duplex, so I have dismissed EVs unfortunately.
Would hybrids be the way to go, our would a small engined 1.0 or 1.2 petrol be similar?
Rough budget is 15k, at which price I'm pretty much only seeing Priuses.

fjon

fjon wrote: »

I'm looking to see what options I have in replacing my 12 year old diesel car.
I would like something that's less polluting, but also has enough space for 2 kids and a decent boot.
I live in a duplex, so I have dismissed EVs unfortunately.
Would hybrids be the way to go, our would a small engined 1.0 or 1.2 petrol be similar?
Rough budget is 15k, at which price I'm pretty much only seeing Priuses.

Can't go wrong with a Prius, great car with loads of room, very reliable and also very economical and a far better drive than a 1 - 1.2 Petrol.

Nice bit of poke too and it's automatic, very relaxing in town and traffic.

When you say you live in a duplex , do you have parking reasonably close to the apartment ?

Have you looked into getting a charge point ?

fjon

The petrol option I was considering was an Octavia or Fabia estate.
Prius seems reasonable, if a bit bland.

As for the place I live, there is parking outside the front (not assigned), but in-between the building and car parking there are two paths and some grass.
Getting my own charge-point would not work. It might be possible to get the OMC to look into getting communal ones, but to be honest it's not something I see happening any time soon.

fjon

fjon wrote: »

The petrol option I was considering was an Octavia or Fabia estate.
Prius seems reasonable, if a bit bland.

As for the place I live, there is parking outside the front (not assigned), but in-between the building and car parking there are two paths and some grass.
Getting my own charge-point would not work. It might be possible to get the OMC to look into getting communal ones, but to be honest it's not something I see happening any time soon.

My Brother was looking to see if a charge point was possible in his apartment , the issue isn't the charge point but the billing, it would have to be a communal system which no one will agree to because no one has an ev there and probably mostly walk or own diesels and won't want to pay for someone else's electricity.

It needs to be law that charge points are installed for Apartment owners , renters etc.

The Prius would be a lot more economical than Octavia or Fabia estate petrol.

Zenith74

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My Brother was looking to see if a charge point was possible in his apartment , the issue isn't the charge point but the billing, it would have to be a communal system which no one will agree to because no one has an ev there and probably mostly walk or own diesels and won't want to pay for someone else's electricity.

Depending on how much he really wants an EV, a coin operated charger might be an option? Coin operated timers are pretty much off-the-shelf items that an electrician could include in the setup no problem.

McGiver

Zenith74 wrote: »

Depending on how much he really wants an EV, a coin operated charger might be an option? Coin operated timers are pretty much off-the-shelf items that an electrician could include in the setup no problem.

That's actually a good idea...

fjon

For apartment dwellers I assumed that in future there would be some system where you need to login to your account before using a charger, and this would then deduct the money from your CC/ Bank Account.

Zenith74

Zenith74 wrote: »

Depending on how much he really wants an EV, a coin operated charger might be an option? Coin operated timers are pretty much off-the-shelf items that an electrician could include in the setup no problem.

McGiver wrote: »

That's actually a good idea...

Someone would have to oversee the coin collection. There would have to be extra admin no matter how you look at it and that has to come from management fees and they would have to organise it.

Everything is possible but no, he wasn't prepared to go through months and months of red tape and bull****.

I doubt they would have went for coin collection anyway , that could attract the wrong attention.

It's doesn't matter now because he's moving to 2 acres in the country , I don't know if he'd buy EV now anyway considering he'll have a big mortgage and if they need to do up the house new car will probably be the last thing on his mind.

fjon

fjon wrote: »

For apartment dwellers I assumed that in future there would be some system where you need to login to your account before using a charger, and this would then deduct the money from your CC/ Bank Account.

Yes that is highly possible but again, it's resistance from management agencies, cost and extra admin have to be addressed, management agencies are not always willing to bother especially if they're paying for something for someone else that they're not benefiting from.

Charging for apartment owners/renters and others needs to become a legal right.

It is possible that in the future you will see large banks of high power chargers at garages and finding a charge will be as easy as filling up with Petrol and the push to make charging a legal right might not happen but I can't see that either as People will want to charge at home rather than go out and pay more at a fast charger.

KCross

Zenith74 wrote: »

Depending on how much he really wants an EV, a coin operated charger might be an option? Coin operated timers are pretty much off-the-shelf items that an electrician could include in the setup no problem.

Rolec already do a token operated pedestal charge point and its nothing more expensive than any other pedestal.

You pop in the token and it gives you a set number of minutes of charge.

The resident would buy the token from the management company.

The management company could use it as a revenue generating task rather than looking at it as an overhead. Im sure it would then make the whole thing alot more palatable to the non-EV residents as they would see financial benefit for themselves.... money talks and all that.

James Bond Junior

Keeping your 12 year old diesel car until isn't viable drive anymore is probably the most environmentally friendly option. People need to keep using what they have, for longer to help the environment. New stuff means more resources and energy being poured into making them. I know I'll probably be slaughtered for this but anyway.

KCross

KCross wrote: »

Rolec already do a token operated pedestal charge point and its nothing more expensive than any other pedestal.

You pop in the token and it gives you a set number of minutes of charge.

The resident would buy the token from the management company.

The management company could use it as a revenue generating task rather than looking at it as an overhead. Im sure it would then make the whole thing alot more palatable to the non-EV residents as they would see financial benefit for themselves.... money talks and all that.

No point if the driver would be ripped off.

I wouldn't image the management company can charge for electricity anyway ?

James Bond Junior

James Bond Junior wrote: »

Keeping your 12 year old diesel car until isn't viable drive anymore is probably the most environmentally friendly option. People need to keep using what they have, for longer to help the environment. New stuff means more resources and energy being poured into making them. I know I'll probably be slaughtered for this but anyway.

If everyone held on to their cars longer there'd be less cars for 2nd hand buyers.

Driving filthy polluting diesel cars around towns and cities is not beneficial for anyone.

On the bright side, electric cars could potentially last decades if they can install new batteries. The old one can go to renewable energy storage.

KCross

Deleted User wrote: »

No point if the driver would be ripped off.

I wouldn't image the management company can charge for electricity anyway ?

Its not in the management companies interest to rip off the tenant as they simply wouldnt use it then. An agreed, reasonable amount.

No issue with selling the tokens. You're not selling electricity. You're selling time on a resource. How much electricity is used is dependent on the car connected to it.

KCross

KCross wrote: »

Its not in the management companies interest to rip off the tenant as they simply wouldnt use it then. An agreed, reasonable amount.

No issue with selling the tokens. You're not selling electricity. You're selling time on a resource. How much electricity is used is dependent on the car connected to it.

Yeah anything can work if the management company are willing to play ball but unfortunately a lot of the time they are not, especially if they are not electric car owners themselves.

KCross

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah anything can work if the management company are willing to play ball but unfortunately a lot of the time they are not, especially if they are not electric car owners themselves.

Of course.

I suspect the issue for them is that there is nothing in it for them, only hassle.

Now, if the tenant(s) organised it and put a proposal forward that resulted in income being generated for the management company and it was a communal charger that anyone can use they would have little to gripe about.... who'd turn away an income for doing no work!

James Bond Junior

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If everyone held on to their cars longer there'd be less cars for 2nd hand buyers.

Driving filthy polluting diesel cars around towns and cities is not beneficial for anyone.

On the bright side, electric cars could potentially last decades if they can install new batteries. The old one can go to renewable energy storage.

Perfectly aware of this, but they asked for an environmentally option. I gave one, on the assumption the 12 year old car is still a functioning. If not, then by all means an electric car is a good option.

James Bond Junior

James Bond Junior wrote: »

Perfectly aware of this, but they asked for an environmentally option. I gave one, on the assumption the 12 year old car is still a functioning. If not, then by all means an electric car is a good option.

Of course the car is still functioning but in my opinion we can't get these old diesels off the road fast enough.

The old car can be recycled if it were to be scrapped but unfortunately in Ireland that probably won't happen.

McGiver

James Bond Junior wrote:

Keeping your 12 year old diesel car until isn't viable drive anymore is probably the most environmentally friendly option. People need to keep using what they have, for longer to help the environment. New stuff means more resources and energy being poured into making them. I know I'll probably be slaughtered for this but anyway.

Sure, big fan of recycling and not buying new stuff myself.

BUT the big issue is the carcinogenic particulate matter coming out of the exhaust of that trash can wherever it goes - near schools, kids... A big no, sorry, in this case this buying another item is the lesser evil IMHO.

McGiver

KCross wrote:

The management company could use it as a revenue generating task rather than looking at it as an overhead. Im sure it would then make the whole thing alot more palatable to the non-EV residents as they would see financial benefit for themselves.... money talks and all that.

There only issue with this is that it would be too expensive, you can use public charger instead. The whole idea of locals AC charger is to buy electricity at cheap domestic rate.
It would have to be cheaper than public charging and perhaps only slightly more expensive than domestic electricity, but then I think the revenue generating aspect would be gone.

KCross

McGiver wrote: »

There only issue with this is that it would be too expensive, you can use public charger instead.

Why does it have to be too expensive?

Using public chargers on a daily basis is not viable. The idea is that you plug in where you park your car and it would be dedicated to your apartment block not open to the public. Convenience, reliabilty and availability are important elements to it that you wont get with public charging.

McGiver wrote: »

The whole idea of locals AC charger is to buy electricity at cheap domestic rate.
It would have to be cheaper than public charging and perhaps only slightly more expensive than domestic electricity, but then I think the revenue generating aspect would be gone.

Most of the charging would probably be at night time where the rate being paid by the management company is <10c. Charge 15-20c for it and it would still be alot cheaper than the public network.

Again, the convenience and availability element of it will make it more desirable than the public network even if its not cheaper.

Plenty scope for profit. There are companies out there providing similar services already (ubitricity). Its do-able.

KCross

KCross wrote: »

Of course.

I suspect the issue for them is that there is nothing in it for them, only hassle.

Now, if the tenant(s) organised it and put a proposal forward that resulted in income being generated for the management company and it was a communal charger that anyone can use they would have little to gripe about.... who'd turn away an income for doing no work!

In my Brothers apartment the spaces are designated so in his circumstance a communal charger wouldn't work + they get enough money and are not always quick to make repairs etc.

There'd have to be a bank of charge points for a communal charge point that anyone can before it could work, getting the parking space changed to a communal space would have been more hassle and paperwork.

+ the other issue is that he would have wanted the charge point as his own especially if there is only one charge point and that's understandable.

I can only imagine the hassle if parking spaces were ICE'd who'd deal with that ?

KCross

KCross wrote: »

Why does it have to be too expensive?

Using public chargers on a daily basis is not viable. The idea is that you plug in where you park your car and it would be dedicated to your apartment block not open to the public. Convenience, reliabilty and availability are important elements to it that you wont get with public charging.




Most of the charging would probably be at night time where the rate being paid by the management company is <10c. Charge 15-20c for it and it would still be alot cheaper than the public network.

Again, the convenience and availability element of it will make it more desirable than the public network even if its not cheaper.

Plenty scope for profit. There are companies out there providing similar services already (ubitricity). Its do-able.

The management company can't as far as I'm aware charge for electricity, this would be called reselling and that's not allowed as far as I know.

And, again, management companies are making enough money.

KCross

Deleted User wrote: »

The management company can't as far as I'm aware charge for electricity, this would be called reselling and that's not allowed as far as I know.

And, again, management companies are making enough money.

As I said already, you are not selling electricity, you are selling time on the charger. You just set the time and its corresponding price to something that is profitable.

And AFAIK the CRU already ruled that that is legal.

KCross

Deleted User wrote: »

In my Brothers apartment the spaces are designated so in his circumstance a communal charger wouldn't work + they get enough money and are not always quick to make repairs etc.

If he has a dedicated space its easier.

I understand management companies can be hard to deal with here but the issues are solvable if the will exists. You just need the right approach for each situation (dedicated space, communal spaces etc).

If a management company just says no and refuse all efforts to negotiate, well then you are stuck.

Im just making the point that solutions exist. Its not insurmountable.

James Bond Junior

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Of course the car is still functioning but in my opinion we can't get these old diesels off the road fast enough.

The old car can be recycled if it were to be scrapped but unfortunately in Ireland that probably won't happen.

A Land Rover driving for 25 years would be as harmful to the environment as the environmental cost of producing the batteries for a Nissan Leaf. Will a Leaf last 25 years. Reusing what we already have is better for the environment. And recycling the car when it is still functioning is a total misnomer.

...Ghost...

James Bond Junior wrote: »

A Land Rover driving for 25 years would be as harmful to the environment as the environmental cost of producing the batteries for a Nissan Leaf. Will a Leaf last 25 years. Reusing what we already have is better for the environment. And recycling the car when it is still functioning is a total misnomer.

I'm with Mad_Lad on this one. Get those filthy diesels off our roads as quickly as possible. I spent hours in the hospital on Friday night through Saturday morning with my son who has Asthma. Air pollution from the cars on his route to school is a known factor in his asthmatic episodes.

...Ghost...

double post

James Bond Junior

James Bond Junior wrote: »

A Land Rover driving for 25 years would be as harmful to the environment as the environmental cost of producing the batteries for a Nissan Leaf. Will a Leaf last 25 years. Reusing what we already have is better for the environment. And recycling the car when it is still functioning is a total misnomer.

Everything we buy has some environmental impact but I think most People forget that consumer electronics are by far the greatest consumers of Lithium batteries at this point in time.

Oil has to be discovered, wells drilled, Oil extracted, transported to refineries and then of course refined , delivered to the petrol stations, a huge amount of energy consumed in the process.

Electric cars use their energy much more efficiently and the more green energy on the grid can go towards powering our transportation.

Keeping diesels on the road is not good and neither is burning smokey coal which there seems to be no end.

SlowBlowin

James Bond Junior wrote: »

Keeping your 12 year old diesel car until isn't viable drive anymore is probably the most environmentally friendly option. People need to keep using what they have, for longer to help the environment. New stuff means more resources and energy being poured into making them. I know I'll probably be slaughtered for this but anyway.

Yes thats the truth... the maths makes perfect sense.

Yet the government decides to tax old cars the heaviest, that is a plain money grab, nothing to do with logic. If you want to tax diesel, tax new diesels so the fleet does not enlarge, the old cars are already made so they need to be used. The normal argument they use to defend this is CO2 emissions, saying new cars are so much cleaner, I think this is based on manufacturers figures, not what happens in the real world.

SlowBlowin

I would say tax the living daylights out of all new ICE car sales.

Tax commercials, and offer incentives to switch to electric when available, there really isnt an alternative yet.

There is nothing to be gained in forcing old Mrs O'Brian, who lives 10 miles from the shop and can only afford a 10 year old diesel, off the road, makes no sense.

There are no electric lorries, there are no electric vans it would be unfair to penalise businesses, especially rural, that have no choice. In saying this I know people are going to say about the Nissan vans, and the Telsa lorries etc, but they are not readily available with the required range.

I am saying this as a Tesla fan, and someone who lives off grid. I appreciate the ideals, they are also mine, but its jumping the gun, we are too early to force people off the road when no alternative exists.

Zenith74

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Yes thats the truth... the maths makes perfect sense.

Yet the government decides to tax old cars the heaviest, that is a plain money grab, nothing to do with logic. If you want to tax diesel, tax new diesels so the fleet does not enlarge, the old cars are already made so they need to be used. The normal argument they use to defend this is CO2 emissions, saying new cars are so much cleaner, I think this is based on manufacturers figures, not what happens in the real world.

It only makes sense if you're thinking purely of CO2 emissions. One of the big advantages of electrified cars is that they don't create localised emissions where they drive. NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions are particularly high from diesel cars (compared to petrol), are higher from older diesel cars with more basic emission controls in-place and get worse as the car ages. An electrified car emits zero NOx emissions when it passes you on the street and virtually no PM emissions (save for a bit of brake/tyre dust).

The EPA in Ireland recently released a study of how bad NOx emissions are in urban areas and advise you to pick up and carry your children if you're near a road to reduce their exposure. I mean for feck sake how can people argue in-favour of old diesels in light of stuff like this!?

I totally get the argument that it would be financially unfair to just ban these cars outright on the less-well-off, but arguing that keeping old diesels on the road is better for our environment? There is no effective difference between driving past somebody in your old diesel and popping in that person's home and sprinkling a pinch of arsenic on their brekkie each morning.

SlowBlowin

Zenith74 wrote: »

It only makes sense if you're thinking purely of CO2 emissions. One of the big advantages of electrified cars is that they don't create localised emissions where they drive. NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions are particularly high from diesel cars (compared to petrol), are higher from older diesel cars with more basic emission controls in-place and get worse as the car ages. An electrified car emits zero NOx emissions when it passes you on the street and virtually no PM emissions (save for a bit of brake/tyre dust).

The EPA in Ireland recently released a study of how bad NOx emissions are in urban areas and advise you to pick up and carry your children if you're near a road to reduce their exposure. I mean for feck sake how can people argue in-favour of old diesels in light of stuff like this!?

I totally get the argument that it would be financially unfair to just ban these cars outright on the less-well-off, but arguing that keeping old diesels on the road is better for our environment? There is no effective difference between driving past somebody in your old diesel and popping in that person's home and sprinkling a pinch of arsenic on their brekkie each morning.

I am not so much saying it is environmentally friendly, just that its the common sense approach as there is no alternative.

I get the arsenic thing, but really is there an alternative ? On the same theme you would ban all jet travel wouldn't you ? That would lead to a global disaster ?

I am not going to suggest to farmers that they stop all diesel use, as there is no alternative for them. When there are alternatives I will be suggesting they switch.

If there is no alternative, but one is on the horizon surely you wait for it dont you, whats controversial about that ?

Zenith74

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I am not so much saying it is environmentally friendly, just that its the common sense approach as there is no alternative.

I get the arsenic thing, but really is there an alternative ? On the same theme you would ban all jet travel wouldn't you ? That would lead to a global disaster ?

I am not going to suggest to farmers that they stop all diesel use, as there is no alternative for them. When there are alternatives I will be suggesting they switch.

If there is no alternative, but one is on the horizon surely you wait for it dont you, whats controversial about that ?

Sorry I only replied to you because you said "that's the truth" to the other poster who said "Keeping your 12 year old diesel car until isn't viable drive anymore is probably the most environmentally friendly option." which I disagree with when it comes to anything other than CO2 emissions.

I would not ban air travel and agree you cannot ban cars where there are no alternatives or less well-off people cannot afford the alternatives. Where there are alternatives though, we need to move swiftly because (to quote a wise man) the maths makes perfect sense; emissions from petrol/diesel cars are killing people early, older diesels are especially bad and electrified cars don't just reduce NOx emissions they cut them to zero and similar for PM.

fjon

So despite the topic meandering a bit I take I the consensus is that it's better to get my filthy diesel off the road and get a Prius (or the like) rather than drive it into the ground? I'm lucky in that I am in the position to get a less polluting car, which I understand not everyone can do.

SlowBlowin

fjon wrote: »

So despite the topic meandering a bit I take I the consensus is that it's better to get my filthy diesel off the road and get a Prius (or the like) rather than drive it into the ground? I'm lucky in that I am in the position to get a less polluting car, which I understand not everyone can do.

Yes that seems the logical thing.

Would you get the old car destroyed ? I bet despite all the talk about pollution most people would take the PX, but then you would be peddling an killer.

Make a nice car for little Johnny O'Brains first drive.

fjon

fjon wrote: »

So despite the topic meandering a bit I take I the consensus is that it's better to get my filthy diesel off the road and get a Prius (or the like) rather than drive it into the ground? I'm lucky in that I am in the position to get a less polluting car, which I understand not everyone can do.

Absolutely, if you intend to change then it makes no sense to buy another diesel in my opinion.

The Prius is a very good car and I'm sure you'll be happy with it and hopefully your next car can be electric, I sure as hell wouldn't go back to ICE now.

McGiver

KCross wrote: »

Plenty scope for profit. There are companies out there providing similar services already (ubitricity). Its do-able.

Btw Ubitricity charge 0.24 GBP per kW, public fast chargers are 0.40 GPB, domestic day rate is 0.14 GBP, so it's 70% more than domestic but 40% less than a fast charger.

McGiver

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I would say tax the living daylights out of all new ICE car sales.

Tax commercials, and offer incentives to switch to electric when available, there really isnt an alternative yet.

There is nothing to be gained in forcing old Mrs O'Brian, who lives 10 miles from the shop and can only afford a 10 year old diesel, off the road, makes no sense.

There are no electric lorries, there are no electric vans it would be unfair to penalise businesses, especially rural, that have no choice. In saying this I know people are going to say about the Nissan vans, and the Telsa lorries etc, but they are not readily available with the required range.

I am saying this as a Tesla fan, and someone who lives off grid. I appreciate the ideals, they are also mine, but its jumping the gun, we are too early to force people off the road when no alternative exists.

Lorries and vans are a different category of cars and should be initially excluded from these policies, of course. Exemptions can be made for business. But that is not the case for personal cars private or business, no exemptions, no exceptions. In fact, I'd increase incentives for businesses taking up PHEV, BEVs (tax credit/discount or something). The best policy is 0 VAT for BEV and reduced VAT for PHEV. Simple and effective. The same for VRT.

But contrary to what you say motor tax, especially for diesel, must be hiked gradually and then steadily increased step by step - no shock therapy. At least push for switch to petrol initially. Then to PHEV and finally BEV. The later we start the more shock it will be later on, I'm afraid.

McGiver

Zenith74 wrote: »

It only makes sense if you're thinking purely of CO2 emissions. One of the big advantages of electrified cars is that they don't create localised emissions where they drive. NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions are particularly high from diesel cars (compared to petrol), are higher from older diesel cars with more basic emission controls in-place and get worse as the car ages. An electrified car emits zero NOx emissions when it passes you on the street and virtually no PM emissions (save for a bit of brake/tyre dust).

The EPA in Ireland recently released a study of how bad NOx emissions are in urban areas and advise you to pick up and carry your children if you're near a road to reduce their exposure. I mean for feck sake how can people argue in-favour of old diesels in light of stuff like this!?

I totally get the argument that it would be financially unfair to just ban these cars outright on the less-well-off, but arguing that keeping old diesels on the road is better for our environment? There is no effective difference between driving past somebody in your old diesel and popping in that person's home and sprinkling a pinch of arsenic on their brekkie each morning.

Thumbs up. We really need to keep repeating this until it's changed. There's no other way. As much I care about CO2, it's almost irrelevant in the light of NOx and PM pollution. NOx and PM must be focus of our educational campaign on diesels.

Diesel machines release a poison and allowing these machines near settlements or people is criminal.

liamog

We're starting to see a lot of LCV (Light Commercial Vehicles) being introduced as EVs.
The clean air zones in European Cities are driving change really quickly here.

It's probably much easier to get a business to switch over, they are far more likely to look at TCO over purchase price than the average consumer.

liamog

McGiver wrote: »

Thumbs up. We really need to keep repeating this until it's changed. There's no other way. As much I care about CO2, it's almost irrelevant in the light of NOx and PM pollution. NOx and PM must be focus of our educational campaign on diesels.

Diesel machines release a poison and allowing these machines near settlements or people is criminal.

Something along the lines of the Crit'Air system used in France should be introduced.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/law-change-for-uk-drivers-in-french-cities/

McGiver

liamog wrote:

Something along the lines of the Crit'Air system used in France should be introduced.

Wells yeah and green/purple/whatever colour other than white or yellow plates for EVs facilitating perks.

SlowBlowin

McGiver wrote: »

But contrary to what you say motor tax, especially for diesel, must be hiked gradually and then steadily increased step by step - no shock therapy. At least push for switch to petrol initially. Then to PHEV and finally BEV. The later we start the more shock it will be later on, I'm afraid.

My point was why should older cars, that have already be made (at large environmental cost) and are generally owned by the less well off, be taxed heavier than brand new diesels ordered in 2019 ?

Logic says it should be the other way round ?

liamog

SlowBlowin wrote: »

My point was why should older cars, that have already be made (at large environmental cost) and are generally owned by the less well off, be taxed heavier than brand new diesels ordered in 2019 ?

Logic says it should be the other way round ?

To get them off the road. There are two factors at play here. One the environmental cost to the planet of the resources to produce the car. The second the emissions at the point of use.

The 12 year old diesel is vastly worst for the local environment than a brand new car, the particle matters released have been linked to Alzheimer's. Its kind of like when we had to stop supplying leaded petrol.

SlowBlowin

OK, I really don't like trusting car manufacturers figures (history), and that where we agree to differ.

The whole particulate filter thing seems a lot of rubbish to me. As I understand it, and I might well be wrong, the filters work by collecting all the particulates in the filter, and when they get full, burning this off in one go (big smoky cloud), like automatic fly tipping. Certainly thats how the vw ones work.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/worst-new-diesel-cars-emit-toxic-fumes-11-times-the-pollution-limit-djkscxsqr

My point is that we should not go after the old diesels on the road when we are rewarding new car manufacturers with lower taxes on new diesel, encouraging further diesel production.

I believe a 10 year old diesel, say with a 4 year lifespan left, is less polluting than building and operating a brand new diesel car.

I don't think we should separate local and global pollution and say ones worse than the other, seems very selfish to me, the ultimate form of nimbyism.

MacDanger

Zenith74 wrote: »

emissions from petrol/diesel cars are killing people early

From a purely environmental point of view, this is actually a good thing though

galwaytt

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I believe a 10 year old diesel, say with a 4 year lifespan left, is less polluting than building and operating a brand new diesel car.

I don't think we should separate local and global pollution and say ones worse than the other, seems very selfish to me, the ultimate form of nimbyism.

To your former: 14 ? Try 20.

To your latter: agreed. Plundering the earth for Lithium and other rare materials by nefarious means and the havoc that causes so that O'Connell Street pedestrians can breathe more easily: apart from the Vaping & Cigarette smoke :rolleyes: is one form of nimbyism alright.

SlowBlowin

galwaytt wrote: »

To your former: 14 ? Try 20.

I put 14 because I believe in 4 years time electric cars will be everywhere and there will then be suitable models, at the right price. At this time I believe the tax of ICE will get fierce.

Zenith74

galwaytt wrote: »

To your former: 14 ? Try 20.

To your latter: agreed. Plundering the earth for Lithium and other rare materials by nefarious means and the havoc that causes so that O'Connell Street pedestrians can breathe more easily: apart from the Vaping & Cigarette smoke :rolleyes: is one form of nimbyism alright.

~90% of lithium is aquired by evaporating salty water in natural sunlight. I don't think any extraction of natural resources could be said to be good, but it's hard for me to see how allowing some salt water evaporate in the sun is not better than extracting oil in generally very unstable parts of the world, where the influx of money tends to lead to rampant corruption and strife for the locals, then take that oil and burn it in other parts of the world where it is killing people early in their tens of thousands.

McGiver

Zenith74 wrote:

~90% of lithium is aquired by evaporating salty water in natural sunlight. I don't think any extraction of natural resources could be said to be good, but it's hard for me to see how allowing some salt water evaporate in the sun is not better than extracting oil in generally very unstable parts of the world, where the influx of money tends to lead to rampant corruption and strife for the locals, then take that oil and burn it in other parts of the world where it is killing people early in their tens of thousands.

... And transport it in the tankers, with the risk of spilling which is impossible to clean, 'cause you know hydrocarbons are non-polar compounds and don't dissolve in polar solvent such as water! And they're toxic and carcinogenic.

On the contrary lithium is transported as Li2CO3 aka lithium carbonate (lithium analog of soda) and in the case of ship sinking it will simple dissolve in the water and diffuse in the ocean with no serious widespread ecological damage.