Electric RangeRover Conversion

[Snagger]

I can see those parallels, and I think you’re right that the majority will see it that way.  I’m just concerned that the zealots will still have far too much influence and if they can’t get ICE vehicle outlawed, will go around vandalising them with impunity.  Vandalism of 4wd vehicles is already an issue, though not on a huge scale yet, but look at how unhinged Extinction Rebellion and their like are - they’re not going away any time soon.  On the flip side, if we concede to those lunatics, they’ll just move the goal posts and want all EVs banned too…

[Nonimouse]

Petrol and diesel are readily available from recycling plastic. A company in Swindon produces a production unit that fits in a 20' container. Of the four resultant 'fuels' produced by the process (shredded, washed plastic is atomised by sand at 600 degrees, then directed up a distillation column), the finest is essentially the same as base diesel.

The infrastructure to support Electric cars is simply not around, anywhere in the world and won't be ready in the UK until the middle of the 21st Century. Lithium (80% of the worlds potential supply is in Afghanistan) Batteries are too expensive to recycle and simply don't last long enough and Zinc Ion stuff is late on the market.

There's no grant available to modify older cars to electric. Older, larger vehicles, would be a prime contender for this.

Range is simply not there - how do we move all our goods around the UK without diesel powered vehicles. Our rail network is so past it's sell by date, it's ridiculous. Canals are no longer used, Covid has turned the trend of moving form rural to city on it's head, internet purchases can't be delivered by electric

And to top it all, the UK only contributes between 0.7 and 1.1% of the global Carbon mess. China produces 28%, with Japan, India, Russia and Murica all in the top five. We are 17th. The 0.7 -1.1% is taken form the varying figures available, best to worst. Why? Because it's almost impossible to calculate accurate figures.

Can we actually stop global warming? No. Would it be better to learn to adapt and become sustainable? A new var, on average produces 15.25 tonnes of carbon on manufacture.That's three years of running an average, well maintained old car at 30mpg.  A brand new Disco 5 is actually 35 tonnes on prodcution and a C1 is 6 tonnes. So two years of driving a D2 Td5 is not far off the cost of a C1 Build. Crazy.

Enforced maintainance is the road so Sustainablity with vehicles. The worst pollutoirs are in the 7 to 10 year old bracket. Poorly maintained and at the end of the origional design life. A well maintained 200tdi is cleaner than a 10 year old Golf GTD (potentially)!

And as for sustainability, don't get me started on concrete, Vegan diets or frequent fliers....just don't

 

 

[monkie]

I don't think comparing emissions from one country to the next is a case to do nothing, particularly when Western countries like the UK shift a load of manufacturing and industry to places such as China and then point the finger at China for being a large source of emissions. The effects are global irrespective of where the CO2 is produced. 

I agree the infrastructure isn't here yet for a mass switch to EVs but it will come. Just a when petrol engines were in their infancy, there wasn't the infrastructure for them either, but it came just as it will for EVs. Like it or not petrol and diesel is going and will continue to do so with a quickening pace. 

A big problem with respect to CO2 for petrol and diesel is the amount of CO2 associated with it before you even burn it in terms of its production and distribution. 

[Eightpot]

I don't think this lectric thing will take off.

It's becoming clear that the human population is nearing saturation point, and could easily be dealt a severe blow by natural disaster, disease or war leaving infrastucture in tatters, resources depleted or lack of sufficiently talented people to run the show.  Cities will re-wild, motorways grown over. For a short time Land Rovers will again rule the world till we've used up all the cooking oil. Those of us left will take to the water on coracles . 

No point investing in a nissan leaf in the meantime. 

[jeremy996]

40 minutes ago, Eightpot said:

Cities will re-wild, motorways grown over. For a short time Land Rovers will again rule the world till we've used up all the cooking oil. Those of us left will take to the water on coracles . 

A bit of land and an oil seed press; I'm not happy in a coracle!

[smallfry]

At the moment it seems to me the whole blame is because of the ICE.

 CO2 emissions by petrol vehicles seems to have fallen off the radar for now, if favour of demonising diesel, until the next thing.

The bottom line is that there are too many humans on the planet. So, my way of thinking is either I kill the planet with a petrol vehicle, or kill some people with a diesel. For the benefit of the planet the choice is clear ! 

Steam locomotives, heritage lines, Traction engines etc. are not privately owned in the same way as a motor vehicle. By and large, you have to go somewhere to see them (in your polluting vehicle) in what is effectively a living museum, so they are very few and far between in comparison to motor vehicles, so this is why they will still be allowed to operate IMO

[reb78]

Thing is, we see it with every new fad.
 

Lead was banned and suplhur was increased, now thats bad. 
 

Diesel was pushed, now its the worst thing ever. 

Electric is being pushed but we will wake up and realise that even 'green' electric generation is massively polluting and the batteries are an ecological nightmare, then that will be wrong. 
 

Its never going to end well...

[monkie]

I think that's because they focus on just one thing at a time. First Lead causing problems, then Sulphur causing acid rain, then CO2 emissions and so on. I think it's a good thing if people as a whole are more aware of the impact their actions have. As others have said there's too many of us and we are mostly reluctant to make significant change our lifestyles. 

[Nonimouse]

50 minutes ago, jeremy996 said:

A bit of land and an oil seed press; I'm not happy in a coracle!

eleven tonnes of oil seed makes about 4000litrs  of oil in a good year - cold pressed. This is then reduced to about 3,800litres after filtering - which is a pita. Reckon on about 3.33tonnes per acre at the moment - but it's dropping. You'll need to spray it as well

Works well, mind. And smells lovely

[jeremy996]

Never, ever allow politicians to set environmental laws! Many politicians are trained as lawyers and you do not become a lawyer if you can do maths! The first and last prime minister with a science degree was Margaret Thatcher, who was an early convert to the concept of global warming, (and grasped the likely consequences).

Politicians like simple answers and are easily bamboozled by anything with more than 2 variables, (2 legs bad, 4 legs good is about as complex as they can easy cope). Suggesting that H2 is the green saviour has been adopted by politicians as it gives the petrochemical industry an easy in, which tops up the electioneering coffers.

The best green solutions tend to be multi-facetted, often small scale and frequently about small incremental improvements to an existing process. Sorting out domestic insulation to Scandinavian standards would massively reduce the UK energy consumption. It is hard to get a proper "politician friendly" headline from doing small, sensible things well. (And the house builders are big contributors to the political coffers and the biggest barrier to building regulation changes)

My favourite book on sustainable energy is https://www.withouthotair.com/; one of the suggestions is concentrate on the numbers, in terms of efficiency as a key to set policy. ICE are notoriously inefficient, with most energy bleeding away as heat or noise, leaving about 30% to do useful work. Diesels are better that petrol, but neither are good. A BEV is much more efficient, even with high carbon electricity, so I think, long term, a move to electricity for private cars is certain, providing private cars continue to exist.

The removal of lead and sulphur were both public health driven, not really energy policy, but the demonization of diesel is illogical on energy grounds, (although the fine particulates are a public health issue, at least partly addressed by DPFs).

The rapid scrapping and replacement of the national vehicle fleet is a truly dumb idea on energy grounds as roughly a third of the total lifetime energy is used up to make it. Keeping old bangers running, rather than have a new one made starts off with a 30% advantage!

[mickeyw]

Back in the mid 80's? the politicians were telling us to run diesel because apparently it was the cleaner greener option.

I predict that in 30-40 years, possibly during my life time, the politicos will have done a full U-turn on the electric-cars-are-good thing because we're running out of lithium, or cobalt. They'll be telling us how environmentally harmful it is to mine, process and recycle lithium and batteries. But it won't be their fault for poorly advising us back in the 20's because they were merely going by what some scientists had told them at the time; and that we should be adopting their latest tax-earning transport whim.

[mickeyw]

28 minutes ago, jeremy996 said:

The rapid scrapping and replacement of the national vehicle fleet is a truly dumb idea on energy grounds as roughly a third of the total lifetime energy is used up to make it. Keeping old bangers running, rather than have a new one made starts off with a 30% advantage!

This is a point I have made many times. I run a very tidy 19 year old diesel car that has 85000 miles under its belt. I drive it maybe 3000 miles per year, and working from home for the last 18 months it has done even less. IMO the carbon cost of building the car has not yet been paid off, and for the modest mileage I do it is not worth buying anything newer and cleaner running and costing the Earth far more tonnes of carbon than I'll emit in the next few years driving the car I have.  

[landroversforever]

15 minutes ago, mickeyw said:

This is a point I have made many times. I run a very tidy 19 year old diesel car that has 85000 miles under its belt. I drive it maybe 3000 miles per year, and working from home for the last 18 months it has done even less. IMO the carbon cost of building the car has not yet been paid off, and for the modest mileage I do it is not worth buying anything newer and cleaner running and costing the Earth far more tonnes of carbon than I'll emit in the next few years driving the car I have.  

Sadly this is a huge part of the issue that most ignore. Particularly the several old people in the village I can think of who have chopped in their 5-10yr old car for a brand new electric and it’s safe to say they’ll not last long enough to see enough use to be of benefit.

[monkie]

22 minutes ago, landroversforever said:

Sadly this is a huge part of the issue that most ignore. Particularly the several old people in the village I can think of who have chopped in their 5-10yr old car for a brand new electric and it’s safe to say they’ll not last long enough to see enough use to be of benefit.

There's 2 separate issues though: carbon dioxide and air quality. Although a switch to electric is a slow payoff for carbon dioxide the improvement in air quality is almost immediate. I think a lot of people confuse these two points and it brings us back to diesel vs petrol again. Diesels are better from a carbon dioxide point of view but worse for the air quality hence the flip flopping in encouraging us plebs what to buy. 

[Bowie69]

Well I just think it's a load of hot air, if you ask me.

[landroversforever]

4 hours ago, monkie said:

There's 2 separate issues though: carbon dioxide and air quality. Although a switch to electric is a slow payoff for carbon dioxide the improvement in air quality is almost immediate. I think a lot of people confuse these two points and it brings us back to diesel vs petrol again. Diesels are better from a carbon dioxide point of view but worse for the air quality hence the flip flopping in encouraging us plebs what to buy. 

I get that… but for these people that still makes Naff all difference. We’re talking people here that might do 500-1000miles a year, if that. In some of those cases, even less than that. And they’re already out in the sticks not in a city with much worse air pollution. 

[Bowie69]

On 8/23/2021 at 12:03 PM, paime said:

Good lord what is this monstrosity?! 

Another arm Stellantis are making something similar if the citroen doesn't suit:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/citroen/355835/new-opel-rocks-e-revealed-citroen-ami-based-micro-ev?amp

😁

[Nonimouse]

13 hours ago, landroversforever said:

I get that… but for these people that still makes Naff all difference. We’re talking people here that might do 500-1000miles a year, if that. In some of those cases, even less than that. And they’re already out in the sticks not in a city with much worse air pollution. 

Theres's a couple of mum's up at my youngest's school who drive the best part of five miles a day, just to get the kids to school - both with BMW electric cars. Then lets not forget the ones who do the same miles in D5's etc

[Chicken Drumstick]

22 hours ago, monkie said:

There's 2 separate issues though: carbon dioxide and air quality. Although a switch to electric is a slow payoff for carbon dioxide the improvement in air quality is almost immediate. I think a lot of people confuse these two points and it brings us back to diesel vs petrol again. Diesels are better from a carbon dioxide point of view but worse for the air quality hence the flip flopping in encouraging us plebs what to buy. 

I suspect the bigger picture hasn't yet made frontline media in this regard.

It is true the emissions from the exhaust of an EV are low to zero (it doesn't have a conventional exhaust). But they are not completely emission free. There are still friction surfaces such as tyres and brakes that produce particulates. And there are moving parts in electric motors too. Not too mention the batteries themselves have the ability to vent should the need arise.

IC cars obviously suffer with friction surfaces too in addition to the engines emissions. Although I suspect the particulates from the engine are probably vastly exaggerated in the media.

[missingsid]

42 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I suspect the bigger picture hasn't yet made frontline media in this regard.

It is true the emissions from the exhaust of an EV are low to zero (it doesn't have a conventional exhaust). But they are not completely emission free. There are still friction surfaces such as tyres and brakes that produce particulates. And there are moving parts in electric motors too. Not too mention the batteries themselves have the ability to vent should the need arise.

IC cars obviously suffer with friction surfaces too in addition to the engines emissions. Although I suspect the particulates from the engine are probably vastly exaggerated in the media.

High voltage produces Ozone gas. I know the commercial high voltage dust removers do/did. we knew when they were out of spec as everyone got flu symptoms. So do EV motors produce it?

[Bowie69]

EVs are often up to 600V, however the motors in them are essentially like 3-pahse motors, no brushes,  and no contractors either, all done in the inverter as solid state, so not sure if there will be any ozone at all.

[landroversforever]

2 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I suspect the bigger picture hasn't yet made frontline media in this regard.

It is true the emissions from the exhaust of an EV are low to zero (it doesn't have a conventional exhaust). But they are not completely emission free. There are still friction surfaces such as tyres and brakes that produce particulates. And there are moving parts in electric motors too. Not too mention the batteries themselves have the ability to vent should the need arise.

IC cars obviously suffer with friction surfaces too in addition to the engines emissions. Although I suspect the particulates from the engine are probably vastly exaggerated in the media.

Something like a tesla, or anything with regen, will have considerably less particulates from brakes. I know a friend with one said part of the occasional service is usually to unstick the brakes as they're so rarely used.

[monkie]

Yes, the regenerative braking is great and really does make a significant difference, you can tell because your wheels don't get covered in brake dust anywhere near as much as a car with conventional brakes. 

I totally agree with @Chicken Drumstick with regards to even the most efficient EV will be making some sort of emissions. It winds me up if they have a zero emission badge on them (I think it's the leaf that does?). I think that it is good if the media coverage (exaggerated or not) makes people consider the impact their actions have a little more but badges like zero emission make them think its fine when it isn't as fine as they are lead to believe. 

[mad_pete]

I very much look forward to the day that the friction wear from electric vehicles is our biggest worry. 

[Snagger]

There are a lot of good points being brought up about which system is better, or rather least bad for the environment and so which will ultimately win out.  But that decision gets made by politicians, which as was pointed out, are scientifically illiterate.  The decision will come down to which is politically expedient and easy for them, and which will generate them the most party income and votes.  Which is technically or environmentally superior will have little to do with it.

While some insist that ICE is far more practical and cost effective, and others hold the view that BEVs are better, the reality is entirely subjective.  As for the argument that replacing existing cars with BEVs is in itself polluting, they’re right, but most cars need replacement sooner or later; we’re an unusual exception in the car owning world, along with other classic owners who maintain older vehicles to a high standard.  Most cars get run into the ground, and while replacing a scrapper with a BEV rather than new ICE car may be initially more polluting from production issues, in the long run it is less so, partly because the BEV should have a longer lifespan.  But they will be limited to those who can stump up the higher purchase price (second hand aren’t too badly priced, typically) and have the right “conditions” - somewhere they can charge the vehicle at home and a usually short commute or limited driving need.  For many of us, the battery tech and charging infrastructure will be a problem for a long time yet.

If they can get the prices of BEVs down, then they’ll become more popular for those with those conditions.  Penalising those who need something with more range or who can’t switchover would be grossly unfair.  It should be a choice, ideally with good information made available, rather than the typically heavily biased propaganda.  But when have you ever seen such reasonable pragmatism in a modern western government?