# Is The Demise of Diesel Cars just Slick marketing?



## RichInSpirit (16 Feb 2018)

I've noticed lately a lot of advertising knocking diesel cars while promoting hybrid electric etc.
There also seems to be great value secondhand diesel cars for sale.
I know diesel has some problems, emissions, exhaust recycling valve failures etc, but they are still very economical to run for the middle to high mileage driver.


----------



## Steven Barrett (16 Feb 2018)

First of all, I know nothing about cars. But from what others have told me, the future is in hybrid and electric cars. So if you are someone who buys a car and drives it until it dies, it's better to get one with more of a future than one that is based on the past. 

Saying that, I saw a broken down Nissan Leaf near the airport on Sunday. No hazards lights or anything, we figured it had run out of electricity in the middle of the road 

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## DeclanDublin (16 Feb 2018)

I bought my first diesel ever....last  year.... I suspect they are more polluting, and the future is definitely hybrid or electric. Given the number of diesel cars, they will have to phase them out over time.


----------



## noproblem (16 Feb 2018)

Ever get the feeling that we are being herded like sheep into not buying diesel, etc, but gently forced into having to purchase hybrid, electric, etc, just because it's the new thing and all that baloney. Not many years ago we were being persuaded to change to diesel. I or you go out and buy hybrid, electric, today and in a couple of years that car will more than likely have very little value because a longer distance battery or similar has been invented. I buy diesel, i'll keep buying diesel and the media and spin doctors, politicians, vested interests, etc,for whatever reason won't change my mind. This country, along with many others, is beginning to not allow others voice opinions or have alternative views. Media and many others look down on why another opinion can be even considered. We've seen plenty of that in the last referendums. Long live diesel, that's what I say.


----------



## Ceist Beag (16 Feb 2018)

Aye, am with noproblem. Hybrid/electric cars are still in their infancy and will change quite a lot over the coming years. I've never been one to get in early on new (or still improving) technology so it's diesel still for me for the foreseeable future.


----------



## tallpaul (16 Feb 2018)

In the shorter term in this country, the car buying public is going to be divided and it will be along urban/rural lines.

For the past ten years or so, diesel made up 75% of sales of which many, many cars were bought by Mummies and Daddies bring their darling offspring the 2/3 km's to school of a morning and afternoon and then nipping around town or to their local shopping centre. They bought these cars because they were cheaper to tax but more expensive in the long run as diesel engines are not suitable for almost exclusive urban, short trip, stop/start driving. These mistakes are now being remedied as the penny has dropped that petrol engines are far more efficient in this environment.

However diesel remains king in rural areas where more frequent longer journeys allied to longer commutes over greater distances are more prevalent. Doing 100km a day is far cheaper in a diesel than a petrol and is better for the engine too. Such journeys will continue and therefore there will be an on-going demand for a cost effective engine to cover these longer distances. That is until such time as electric/plug-in hybrid overcomes its primary limiting factor in the minds of buyers: range.

Thus I see there being an future, medium-term requirement for diesel regardless of what any environmentalist/diesel doomsayer/pundit suggests. It is simply the case that educated, savvy buyers will gravitate to the engine that best suits their average, every day driving.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (16 Feb 2018)

SBarrett said:


> First of all, I know nothing about cars. But from what others have told me, the future is in hybrid and electric cars. So if you are someone who buys a car and drives it until it dies, it's better to get one with more of a future than one that is based on the past.
> 
> Saying that, I saw a broken down Nissan Leaf near the airport on Sunday. No hazards lights or anything, we figured it had run out of electricity in the middle of the road
> 
> ...


The electric car you buy today is already based on the past having said that I drive an electric car because it cost  very little to run there is a free charging point close to where I live ,I know the energy regulator is looking at changing the free charging point,
When I bought car had less than 1000 km and had already lost most of its value,


----------



## Leo (16 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> This country, along with many others, is beginning to not allow others voice opinions or have alternative views.



So it's some great government conspiracy driving the decline in diesels engines and not the proven link between diesel emissions and plummeting air quality? 

Diesel was incentivised back in the '90s in a bid to lower overall CO2 emissions, unfortunately the singular focus at that time was on carbon reduction and no one was looking at the bigger picture. It's now accepted that the other elements in diesel particulate matter (NO2, PAH, etc.)is a much more immediate health concern, a senior UK DoT official was quoted as saying we are effectively killing people today in order to potentially save people tomorrow. The saving of 15% in CO2 emissions has resulted in a quadrupling of NO2, and a 22 fold increase in particulate matter that causes respiratory issues.

The move away from incentivising diesels is this country and many others, is these governments admitting they got it very wrong.  So it's clear other opinions and alternative views are considered, but hopefully they'll just listen to the educated ones.


----------



## rob oyle (16 Feb 2018)

I'd slow up on the conspiracy theories lads. If the science is saying that diesel particulates are dangerous and they we shouldn't be creating them then surely we should be moving away from polluting engines.

If fossil fuels are the primary source of GHG emissions and we have to move away from them then that includes, but is not limited to, diesel engines. Is anyone holding off on buying their first computer because the technology is changing every year?


----------



## T McGibney (16 Feb 2018)

The Volkswagen affair demonstrates the dangers of relying too heavily on scientific claims in the context of lucrative car sales. The science behind the relative safety merits of petrol and diesel has not changed in the past 10-15 years but the marketing emphasis has changed several times. No conspiracy theory, just very very slick marketing.


----------



## Ceist Beag (16 Feb 2018)

Are you comparing the purchase of a car with the purchase of a computer Rob?


----------



## rob oyle (16 Feb 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> Are you comparing the purchase of a car with the purchase of a computer Rob?


Hi CB, I'm comparing the premise of not buying because the technology is improving.
If we now know more about the destructive nature of diesel cars and petrol cars aren't an environmentally viable alternative, of course we need to change our buying habits.


----------



## tallpaul (16 Feb 2018)

rob oyle said:


> If we now know more about the destructive nature of diesel cars and petrol cars aren't an environmentally viable alternative, of course we need to change our buying habits.



You do realise that a modern euro6 diesel engine is almost on a par with petrol in terms of emissions, right?? And petrol engines seem to have little or no stigma at present so it is important to compare like with like if we are talking about buying new cars into the future.

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars-76241
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-ne...emissions-standards-what-do-they-mean-for-you

Therefore the term 'destructive nature of diesel cars' is somewhat of a misnomer. It might be more accurate to state the 'destructive nature of OLDER diesel engines that will ultimately be phased out of use over time'...


----------



## RichInSpirit (16 Feb 2018)

I don't know if electric cars are the panacea that they are touted to be. 
Lithium for the batteries is very rare, only in 3 places in the world to the best of my knowledge. Lithium ion batteries are the same as the batteries in your mobile phone and most mobile batteries don't see much more than 6 or 7 years life at the most.


----------



## galway_blow_in (16 Feb 2018)

Thinking of changing my diesel 4wd jeep for a petrol  ( not a jeep)

Diesel is in the crosshairs of government , can see it being more and more penalised


----------



## Ceist Beag (16 Feb 2018)

rob oyle said:


> Hi CB, I'm comparing the premise of not buying because the technology is improving.
> If we now know more about the destructive nature of diesel cars and petrol cars aren't an environmentally viable alternative, of course we need to change our buying habits.


Not if it's going to leave us substantially out of pocket we won't. I'll stick with the proven technology, even if it might be less environmentally friendly, until there is an affordable alternative that offers an equivalent quality, especially in terms of journey range, comfort, ease of refuelling, range of models and quantity of second hand stock.


----------



## Leo (16 Feb 2018)

tallpaul said:


> You do realise that a modern euro6 diesel engine is almost on a par with petrol in terms of emissions, right??



The newer Euro6 standards have dropped the NO2 limits for diesels from 180mg/km to 80mg/km, so a great improvement, but a Euro6 compliant diesel is still allowed to produce 33% more NO2 emissions than an equivalent Euro6 compliant petrol engine. Petrol engines however are allowed twice diesels CO2 emissions.


----------



## mathepac (16 Feb 2018)

It's YAMCJ (yet another massive con job). Why won't governments start by imposing the same road taxation regime, emissions measurements and controls to HGVs,  farm equipment, stationary engines (cement mixers on trucks, generators, etc), trains, ships, including trawlers and tugboats, generating stations and jet aircraft as they do to cars? What about emissions from petrol lawn mowers if it comes to that?


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Feb 2018)

mathepac said:


> It's YAMCJ (yet another massive con job). Why won't governments start by imposing the same road taxation regime, emissions measurements and controls to HGVs,  farm equipment, stationary engines (cement mixers on trucks, generators, etc), trains, ships, including trawlers and tugboats, generating stations and jet aircraft as they do to cars? What about emissions from petrol lawn mowers if it comes to that?


I'd guess it's because there is a lot more infrastructure to be provided & maintained for cars compared to all other items you mention (even if the roads are maintained from general taxation and not just motor tax).


----------



## Leo (16 Feb 2018)

mathepac said:


> Why won't governments start by imposing the same road taxation regime, emissions measurements and controls to HGVs, farm equipment...



Well, there's no such thing as road tax for a start. But HGVs and agricultural machinery driven on public roads do pay motor tax, lawn mowers and cement mixers of course don't. There's a separate argument for excise on fuel to be increased to correlate to the environmental & air pollution caused. If the government was truly interested in tackling these issues, this would be a more equitable model than paying based on the capacity of an engine to pollute regardless of how much it is used. But of course there are vested interests who lobby heavily on this matter.


----------



## MrEarl (16 Feb 2018)

Hello,

If we really care about the impact that diesel cars are having, then why does our government continue to give them a preferential motor tax rate over petrol cars ?

The UK is successfully offloading a lot of it's older diesel cars to us, so we are just making our own problems worse, as we try to save a few quid by buying our cars in the UK and bringing them back home.


----------



## Webster (16 Feb 2018)

The powers that be knew that diesel cars were major pollutants decades ago, but kept it quiet; indeed the oil companies regularly bought out rival engine technologies and then suppressed the technology.


----------



## MrEarl (16 Feb 2018)

Whatever about the rights or wrongs of what was done in times past, there's absolutely no excuse for our government not taking immediate action to prevent more harm being done now and also, taking action to discourage the owners of diesel vehicles from retaining them !

It wouldn't surprise me if most of our government actually traveled separately by diesel powered vehicles to Sligo, for their great PR stunt called "Ireland2040"


----------



## noproblem (16 Feb 2018)

Leo,
"The move away from incentivising diesels is this country and many others, is these governments admitting they got it very wrong. So it's clear other opinions and alternative views are considered, but hopefully they'll just listen to the educated ones."

Makes me laugh when people suggest we listen to the "educated ones". I'm guessing the bankers, politicians, economists, et all, are the type of "educated" people we listened to when the world went belly up. Now we'll get "educated" scientists telling us diesel is the wrong way to go, we'll also get the "educated" scientists telling us that's a load of codswallop, then in the middle of all this are us unfortunate group of ignorant people who supposedly know nothing.  You couldn't make it up


----------



## Leo (16 Feb 2018)

noproblem said:


> Makes me laugh when people suggest we listen to the "educated ones". I'm guessing the bankers, politicians, economists, et all, are the type of "educated" people we listened to when the world went belly up. Now we'll get "educated" scientists telling us diesel is the wrong way to go, we'll also get the "educated" scientists telling us that's a load of codswallop, then in the middle of all this are us unfortunate group of ignorant people who supposedly know nothing.  You couldn't make it up



You need to be able to filter out the vested interests and understand the basis for sound scientific research. I've yet to see any peer reviewed study that disagrees with the fact that NO2, PAH or particulate emissions are bad for our health. Most of the science here is undisputed fact, to suggest that we are being herder like sheep to move away from diesel in some form of government led conspiracy is nonsense.


----------



## noproblem (16 Feb 2018)

Leo said:


> You need to be able to filter out the vested interests and understand the basis for sound scientific research. I've yet to see any peer reviewed study that disagrees with the fact that NO2, PAH or particulate emissions are bad for our health. Most of the science here is undisputed fact, to suggest that we are being herder like sheep to move away from diesel in some form of government led conspiracy is nonsense.



Whatever you say Leo. I'm sure the scientists, like all your educated ones, are never wrong, ever. Doctors differ and patients die. I'll leave it at that, going for a spin in my diesel.


----------



## mathepac (16 Feb 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> I'd guess it's because there is a lot more infrastructure to be provided & maintained for cars compared to all other items you mention.


Untrue. The demands on infrastructure and the damage caused by HGVs and farm machinery are far greater than those caused by cars, even the unnecessarily large Mammy-mobiles.

Have you ever seen what happens to road-surfaces when 40-tonne multi-axel HGVs turn? Or when giant farm-tractors drive in and out of fields during harvest time, ploughing or when silage is being cut? Yet these giants pay less for diesel (they get the VAT back) and less motor tax than I do for my 2-litre diesel Toyota; €800 / annum when paid quarterly, and 57 mpg from a Euro IV/V engine.  HGVs, trains and the other vehicles I mentioned pollute more than cars but contribute less to fighting the conditions they cause.

In this country, as in others, the real polluters do not pay, the lowest guy on the totem pole pays. Ever was it thus.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Feb 2018)

mathepac said:


> Or when giant farm-tractors drive in and out of fields during harvest time, ploughing or when silage is being cut? Yet these giants pay less for diesel (they get the VAT back)


They don't get the VAT back actually.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (16 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> They don't get the VAT back actually.


Sorry I am not up to date is that because they did not have to pay it in the first place,


----------



## T McGibney (16 Feb 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> Sorry I am not up to date is that because they did not have to pay it in the first place,



No, of course not.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (16 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> No, of course not.





T McGibney said:


> No, of course not.


Thanks


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Feb 2018)

Leo said:


> You need to be able to filter out the vested interests and understand the basis for sound scientific research. I've yet to see any peer reviewed study that disagrees with the fact that NO2, PAH or particulate emissions are bad for our health. Most of the science here is undisputed fact, to suggest that we are being herder like sheep to move away from diesel in some form of government led conspiracy is nonsense.



I think the problem is that we were herded like sheep to move *to* diesel in a government led conspiracy ... people suspect the same trick is being pulled again.


----------



## mathepac (16 Feb 2018)

I'm confused too as I see farmers and agricultural contractors featuring on Revenue lists as VAT-defaulters and receiving Revenue fines for the misuse of green diesel e.g. http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news...rs-feature-on-the-latest-tax-defaulters-list/

My key message is that the large commercial vehicle operators under-contribute to the pollution rectification funds and private diesel motorists bear the majority of the burden.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Feb 2018)

mathepac said:


> I'm confused too as I see farmers and agricultural contractors featuring on Revenue lists as VAT-defaulters and receiving Revenue fines for the misuse of green diesel e.g. http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news...rs-feature-on-the-latest-tax-defaulters-list/



Farmers can in theory opt to register for VAT but it makes little economic sense for them to do so as it they will invariably put them out of pocket. Any farmer who is carrying on a separate VATable activity is obliged to do so and to account for VAT, on their farm and off-farm turnover, once their turnover from that off-farm activity exceeds the registration threshold.

These days, owing to limitations on farm incomes, most farmers have separate off-farm income sources and these often include businesses with VAT exposure.

Agricultural contracting, in common with similar services, is a VATable activity.


----------



## Leo (19 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> I think the problem is that we were herded like sheep to move *to* diesel in a government led conspiracy ... people suspect the same trick is being pulled again.



That's exactly the problem, a number of governments, our own included significantly incentivised diesels as they thought it was an easy win on the way to meeting agreed CO2 emissions targets. They conveniently ignored the warnings and we are all paying the price now. Cities like Paris have been forced to take action due to rises in respiratory disease related deaths and move towards restricting or banning diesel vehicles. I don't see how there was any great conspiracy at play though, who do you think stood to gain?

I see the step away from incentivising diesel as a good thing, it's actually backed by sound science and that to me is a lot less sheep-like than sticking with a bad idea pretending it's all OK.


----------



## odyssey06 (19 Feb 2018)

Leo said:


> That's exactly the problem, a number of governments, our own included significantly incentivised diesels as they thought it was an easy win on the way to meeting agreed CO2 emissions targets. They conveniently ignored the warnings and we are all paying the price now. Cities like Paris have been forced to take action due to rises in respiratory disease related deaths and move towards restricting or banning diesel vehicles. I don't see how there was any great conspiracy at play though, who do you think stood to gain? I see the step away from incentivising diesel as a good thing, it's actually backed by sound science and that to me is a lot less sheep-like than sticking with a bad idea pretending it's all OK.



It seemed to have been a green agenda conspiracy... for so many governments in the 21st century to get the science so wrong, heads were being buried in the sands.
Were the warnings ignored, I don't remember reading articles back when the policy was introduced about the risks so I wonder if certain voices drowned out or shut out?

It certainly makes me more suspicious of any government attempts to 'nudge' based on science. 
The science wasn't wrong, as such, but the government process certainly was - any proper due diligence done by a government 15 years ago would have prevented the diesel debacle.

Probably disincentivising diesel is a good thing... my concerns are more about the 'process' rather than the specific 'policy'.


----------



## Leo (19 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> It seemed to have been a green agenda conspiracy... for so many governments in the 21st century to get the science so wrong, heads were being buried in the sands.



I think it was more mis-informed or partially informed people with good intentions creating political pressure and governments wanting to be seen to respond and failing to look at the bigger picture. The problems of diesel particulates have been documented since the '70s, so they can't claim plummeting air quality in cities was a surprise, perhaps governments didn't believe the incentives would be so effective? 

A similar thing has been happening over the last couple of years as similarly mis-informed people with good intentions are installing more and more beehives in response to warnings on the bee population being threatened with extinction. Unfortunately they too are on contributing to the problem.


----------



## galway_blow_in (19 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> They don't get the VAT back actually.



those farmers who are registered for vat get it back


----------



## T McGibney (19 Feb 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> those farmers who are registered for vat get it back


Yeah the 1%. Your point?


----------



## galway_blow_in (19 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Yeah the 1%. Your point?



more than 1% of farmers are vat registered


----------



## T McGibney (19 Feb 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> more than 1% of farmers are vat registered


Not so sure about that - but even if it's 2-3% or even 5%, how does that aid your point?


----------



## galway_blow_in (19 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Farmers can in theory opt to register for VAT but it makes little economic sense for them to do so as it they will invariably put them out of pocket. Any farmer who is carrying on a separate VATable activity is obliged to do so and to account for VAT, on their farm and off-farm turnover, once their turnover from that off-farm activity exceeds the registration threshold.
> 
> These days, owing to limitations on farm incomes, most farmers have separate off-farm income sources and these often include businesses with VAT exposure.
> 
> Agricultural contracting, in common with similar services, is a VATable activity.



vast majority of grain and potatoe farmers are vat registered as they spend so much on machinery , that sector while the minority makes up more than a few percent 

the point being not only is tractor diesel a lot cheaper , the vat can be claimed back by a section of farmers


----------



## T McGibney (20 Feb 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> vast majority of grain and potatoe farmers are vat registered as they spend so much on machinery , that sector while the minority makes up more than a few percent
> 
> the point being not only is tractor diesel a lot cheaper , the vat can be claimed back by a section of farmers


There are only 1,560 potato farmers in the country so they're a total red herring. The numbers of grain farmers with sufficiently large holdings to warrant buying their own machinery, rather than relying on contractors, is a minor subset of the total. A minority of a minority as it were.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Feb 2018)

This is worth reading, if governments are going to push electric vehicles, then they need to follow through on training and resources for fire services.

https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2017/01/27/electric-cars-pose-new-challenges-to-firefighters

_It can take thousands of gallons of water over a long period of time to bring the battery down to a safe temperature, meaning *fire crews will need a sustained water supply from either a hydrant or two trucks full of water.*
"If you can't establish a sustained water supply, there's a high likelihood the battery will reignite," Klock said. "You won't be doing any good if you don't have enough water to cool down the battery and extinguish it." 
The threat of re-ignition goes well beyond when fire crews leave the scene. Similar to trick birthday candles, a lithium ion battery can catch fire hours, days or even weeks after it has been brought down to a normal temperature.
_


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> There are only 1,560 potato farmers in the country so they're a total red herring. The numbers of grain farmers with sufficiently large holdings to warrant buying their own machinery, rather than relying on contractors, is a minor subset of the total. A minority of a minority as it were.



Most farmers who grow cereals have there own machinery for what's done on there barley , wheat etc farms , I include ploughs , seeders etc  and of course combines


----------



## T McGibney (20 Feb 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> Most farmers who grow cereals have there own machinery for what's done on there barley , wheat etc farms , I include ploughs , seeders etc  and of course combines


This is getting boring at this stage but how often does a farmer replace a plough?


----------



## RETIRED2017 (20 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> This is getting boring at this stage but how often does a farmer replace a plough?


It depends on how often he gets a grant to do so,


----------



## PaddyBloggit (20 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> This is getting boring at this stage but how often does a farmer replace a plough?



Not a farmer but have hired machines etc. and you'd be amazed how much maintenance they have to do, teeth breaking on buckets, tracks coming off and so on.


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> This is getting boring at this stage but how often does a farmer replace a plough?



just correcting inaccurate statements


----------



## T McGibney (21 Feb 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> Not a farmer but have hired machines etc. and you'd be amazed how much maintenance they have to do, teeth breaking on buckets, tracks coming off and so on.


If it has a bucket or tracks, it ain't a plough.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (21 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> If it has a bucket or tracks, it ain't a plough.



True enough... lads are quick off the mark around here.


----------



## MrEarl (21 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> If it has a bucket or tracks, it ain't a plough.



True, but it could be a tank


----------



## Mickrick (21 Feb 2018)

Porsche have just announced that they will stop producing diesel models.


----------



## mathepac (22 Feb 2018)

Probably has as much to do with the KBA creating a stink and VW's penchant for cheating on emissions measurements as much as anything else. Porsche were late to the diesel-engine party and now are abrupt leavers:-  https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...ns-for-now-amid-annoyance-with-audi-1.3400112


----------



## noproblem (22 Feb 2018)

One thing's for sure, the next budget, or maybe even before that, the price of diesel is going to get a whopper of an increase.


----------



## MrEarl (23 Feb 2018)

Hi,

The Porsche decision is a positive one, not as extreme as the decision taken by Volvo when they decided to only build electric or hybrids from 2019, but worthy of recognition all the same.  Lots of other big motor companies are still happy to profit by selling diesel engine vehicles though.  I'd have expected more to follow suit and make announcements to end diesel engine production, even if they don't bring those plans into effect for a few years. However, it seems that they are not getting enough negative press, or pressure from the consumers, to bother taking any real action.



noproblem said:


> One thing's for sure, the next budget, or maybe even before that, the price of diesel is going to get a whopper of an increase.



There is absolutely no good reason why we cannot make that change now, no need to wait until the next Budget, or the one after that etc. 

Our government are failing us badly with the lack of any sort of radical action to cut down on omissions.  I can't recall the figures quoted, but I seem to recall reading that we are likely to be fined significant amounts for not reaching our targets for 2020.  I think that there was also mention of us not looking likely to hit subsequent 2030 targets, which again would result in significant fines.  Yet, we continue to have fleets of diesel buses in the cities, second hand diesel cars are being imported on a daily basis from the UK with nothing being done to discourage their purchase, while those buying new diesel cars here in Ireland continue to enjoy the benefits of cheaper motor tax and fuel.  It's just insane !

Are our ministerial cars diesel powered for example ?

Why are government departments and state agencies not compelled to use solar power to help power and heat their buildings etc. ?

... sure, there's capital expenditure involved in investing in solar energy etc. and it will take time to get a return on investment, but there are two returns to consider here, both the financial and also the environmental.


----------



## dereko1969 (23 Feb 2018)

I'd be fairly sure there won't be increases in Diesel excise until after the next election and even then only if there is a government with a big majority. Sadly being massively failed by the Government in this regard.


----------



## rob oyle (23 Feb 2018)

Excise duty on petrol is 59c, 48c on diesel according to the radio yesterday morning. Not sure the policy on fuel taxation has advanced in the last decade but the science has, which has given more importance to nitrous oxide and particulate emissions than previously considered.


----------



## T McGibney (23 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Are our ministerial cars diesel powered for example ?



I most certainly hope so. You're not suggesting we put them in gas guzzler petrol Mercs? 



MrEarl said:


> Why are government departments and state agencies not compelled to use solar power to help power and heat their buildings etc. ?


Because it would involve massive duplication of the existing heating & lighting infrastructure?


----------



## Firefly (23 Feb 2018)

mathepac said:


> Untrue. The demands on infrastructure and the damage caused by HGVs and farm machinery are far greater than those caused by cars, even the unnecessarily large Mammy-mobiles.



I stand to be corrected, but I believe the main issue with diesel is the adverse effect is has on the air quality in urban areas. So even though HGVs & farm machinery are more pollutant, surely it is the car & bus who are clogging up our towns & cities with all the bad stuff?


----------



## Delboy (23 Feb 2018)

Can some of the guru's on here who want more taxation on diesel explain how it will lead to a fall in emissions?
I'm looking forward to the responses


----------



## Firefly (23 Feb 2018)

Delboy said:


> Can some of the guru's on here who want more taxation on diesel explain how it will lead to a fall in emissions?
> I'm looking forward to the responses


I believe the argument would be to make owning a diesel car less attractive. This would presumably lead to a reduction in new car purchases of diesels. 

How about a different, novel idea....how about just reducing the tax on petrols?


----------



## Delboy (23 Feb 2018)

Firefly said:


> I believe the argument would be to make owning a diesel car less attractive. This would presumably lead to a reduction in new car purchases of diesels.


But people would still be driving a car...still probably their diesel or at a push a switch to a petrol model.

Why is the answer to every thing in this country 'more taxation'!


----------



## Jazz01 (23 Feb 2018)

Delboy said:


> Why is the answer to every thing in this country 'more taxation'!



... _the ESRI found that applying the same tax on diesel fuel as on petrol fuel would result in a net decrease in harmful emissions and air pollution,_ _*while boosting the exchequer to the tune of €500 million...
*_
The reality of the extra revenue...


----------



## odyssey06 (23 Feb 2018)

Jazz01 said:


> ... _the ESRI found that applying the same tax on diesel fuel as on petrol fuel would result in a net decrease in harmful emissions and air pollution,_ _*while boosting the exchequer to the tune of €500 million...*_
> The reality of the extra revenue...



Yeah it's amazing the government's interest in green measures picks up whenever there's money to be made...

Interestingly the study does balance the drop in diesel consumption versus revenue and increase petrol consumption.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0222/942595-esri_diesel_duty/

But I don't see how the study can justify its claim that there will be lower carbon emissions - given that half of the diesel reduction is just redirected to petrol.


----------



## Leo (23 Feb 2018)

Delboy said:


> Can some of the guru's on here who want more taxation on diesel explain how it will lead to a fall in emissions?
> I'm looking forward to the responses



Covered earlier in the thread, you need to look at the full picture of all elements within exhaust gas and their effect on long-term climate change or more immediate air quality / health issues. While petrols emit far more CO2 than diesels per km, diesels emit far more fine particulate emmissions including NO2 and PAHs per km.


----------



## mathepac (23 Feb 2018)

Buses for sure are huge polluters in urban areas as you point out. Why not start there? Because the Government must follow the established routine of bleeding the private motorist first and using the money gathered to ease the pain for train and bus companies and other commercial operators/interests.


----------



## Leo (26 Feb 2018)

mathepac said:


> Buses for sure are huge polluters in urban areas as you point out. Why not start there? Because the Government must follow the established routine of bleeding the private motorist first and using the money gathered to ease the pain for train and bus companies and other commercial operators/interests.



Buses are still minor contributors in urban areas. Most of Dublin Bus' fleet of 1014 buses are Euro 5 or 6 compliant, so they're a small part of the problem when there's still more than 50,000 private cars travelling into Dublin on a daily basis. The problems the likes of Paris and London have been having in recent years with dangerously poor air quality isn't down to more buses on the roads.

Dublin Bus looked to trial hybrid buses 4 years ago, but were were refused the $1M funding from the NTA despite the government setting them a target of reducing CO2 emissions by 33% from 2020.


----------



## Protocol (26 Feb 2018)

Delboy said:


> Can some of the guru's on here who want more taxation on diesel explain how it will lead to a fall in emissions?
> I'm looking forward to the responses



Read this, section 3.1:


----------



## MrEarl (26 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> I most certainly hope so. You're not suggesting we put them in gas guzzler petrol Mercs?



Actually, I want them all in hybrids or electric cars.

However, I'd have them in petrol engines, before diesels, if there were no other options.  

There's the environment to consider, not just the cost of filling the tank (and the government has the power to reverse that position, if it changes the tax and levies applied to petrol and diesel) !



T McGibney said:


> ...Because it would involve massive duplication of the existing heating & lighting infrastructure?



There are long term cost benefits, not to mention benefits to the environment.

Respectfully suggest you go do a little research on the damage that is being done to the world, or if you are one of those people that only cares about the numbers then go take a look at the financial implications for us missing our 2020 targets, not alone those that follow ten years later.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Feb 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Actually, I want them all in hybrids or electric cars.
> 
> However, I'd have them in petrol engines, before diesels, if there were no other options.
> 
> ...



How environmentally friendly is it really to duplicate existing and perfectly functional vehicles and heating and lighting infrastructure with new technologies, which involve significant upfront costs both in terms of materials inputs and the financial cost of those inputs?

It wouldn't make financial sense for me to replace my fairly new diesel car with a hybrid or petrol one, just for the supposed "sake of the environment". How can it make sense for a government to do so?



MrEarl said:


> Respectfully suggest you go do a little research on the damage that is being done to the world, or if you are one of those people that only cares about the numbers then go take a look at the financial implications for us missing our 2020 targets, not alone those that follow ten years later.



The prospect of fines is not a credible argument in favour of green technologies. That prospect can be resolved very simply, by politicians making them disappear by mutual agreement.


----------



## MrEarl (26 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> ....It wouldn't make financial sense for me to replace my fairly new diesel car with a hybrid or petrol one ....



Ah, 

Any chance you might have a conflict of interest here Mr. McGibney ?


----------



## Leo (26 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> How environmentally friendly is it really to duplicate existing and perfectly functional vehicles and heating and lighting infrastructure with new technologies,



Heating and lighting infrastructure doesn't have to be duplicated to accommodate solar or other alternative energy sources. The tie-ins in many cases can be pretty trivial.


----------



## Blackrock1 (26 Feb 2018)

sorry if this has been stated before but the future of diesel as the fuel of choice for road vehicles in europe is probably going to be impacted quite shortly by the IMOs 2020 sulphur cap which will effectively mean that most of the worlds ships will have to burn something approximating to diesel instead of fuel oil. That will push up demand and prices.


----------



## RichInSpirit (26 Feb 2018)

Driving a medium sized petrol at the moment, a bit heavy on juice. Looked at the repayment's on a newer diesel. The repayments would eat up any fuel cost benefits fairly rapidly.
Looking at an LPG conversation. About €1000 for the conversation. LPG priced 76.9cents at my local pump a few days ago. Unleaded petrol 135.9 cents. So LPG is 56% of the price of unleaded. It would bring my fuel costs down to a similar cost as diesel.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Feb 2018)

Leo said:


> Heating and lighting infrastructure doesn't have to be duplicated to accommodate solar or other alternative energy sources. The tie-ins in many cases can be pretty trivial.


But solar does involve significant upfront costs, doesn't it?


----------



## Firefly (27 Feb 2018)

Given how tied the Germans are to their diesels I am surprised by this ruling:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ities-can-ban-diesel-cars-to-tackle-pollution


----------



## Leo (27 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> But solar does involve significant upfront costs, doesn't it?



Yes, you're looking at €4-6k for a domestic DHW or PV installation, payback period will vary with scale and occupancy/usage patterns. 

PV payback would be a lot shorter if the feed-in tariffs previously paid for excess electricity fed to the grid hadn't been dropped. Without the tariffs I'm not sure PV retrofits are justified, and I suspect many new-build installations are being done to help the building meet the building regs.


----------



## mathepac (27 Feb 2018)

T McGibney said:


> But solar does involve significant upfront costs, doesn't it?


Probably only exceeded by the upfront, transportation and ongoing environmental and other costs of wind turbines.


----------



## werner (23 Mar 2018)

Leo said:


> Covered earlier in the thread, you need to look at the full picture of all elements within exhaust gas and their effect on long-term climate change or more immediate air quality / health issues. While petrols emit far more CO2 than diesels per km, diesels emit far more fine particulate emmissions including NO2 and PAHs per km.



Fine particulates are also introduced into the environment from tyre wear and brake linings (significant quantities) and from biomass combustion. Coarser particulates predominately come from soil/land erosion and mining. Also if the idea is that electric cars are somehow a panacea , if we were all to convert to them, we would have to bring on stream 100% of the time an awful lot more power generation to cope.

There is very little difference between emissions of all sorts from either modern diesel and petrol Euro 6 compliant engines except of course the much higher C02 from petrol engines. A change to electric powered vehicles is just moving the emissions from the tailpipe to the power stations. Be aware that all wind turbines, apart from the dreadful environmental damage they do to local environments, they must be continuously backed up by fossil fueled power stations at all times due to the dreadful intermittency of wind.
The UK's promotion of petrol/electric/hybrid over diesel has resulted in a very negative increase in C02...

CO2 emissions from average UK new car rise for first time since 2000
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...age-uk-new-car-rise-for-first-time-since-2000


----------



## Firefly (23 Mar 2018)

werner said:


> Fine particulates are also introduced into the environment from tyre wear and brake linings (significant quantities) and from biomass combustion. Coarser particulates predominately come from soil/land erosion and mining. Also if the idea is that electric cars are somehow a panacea , if we were all to convert to them, we would have to bring on stream 100% of the time an awful lot more power generation to cope.
> 
> There is very little difference between emissions of all sorts from either modern diesel and petrol Euro 6 compliant engines except of course the much higher C02 from petrol engines. A change to electric powered vehicles is just moving the emissions from the tailpipe to the power stations. Be aware that all wind turbines, apart from the dreadful environmental damage they do to local environments, they must be continuously backed up by fossil fueled power stations at all times due to the dreadful intermittency of wind.



Nuclear power stations...simples


----------



## PGF2016 (23 Mar 2018)

werner said:


> Be aware that all wind turbines, apart from the dreadful environmental damage they do to local environments,



What is the damage to local environments?


----------



## Leo (23 Mar 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> What is the damage to local environments?



Wind turbine syndrome, you know, like the opposite of the placebo effect where cranks convince themselves the presence of turbines is damaging their health so much they make themselves ill.


----------



## PGF2016 (23 Mar 2018)

But that's not damage to the environment.


----------



## Ceist Beag (23 Mar 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> What is the damage to local environments?


I'm guessing Werner is talking about the damage done to the environment during installation of wind turbines. I have seen evidence of flooding in areas which has been linked to the installation of wind turbines. I'm not sure how proven the link is but at least I'm guessing that is the damage being referred to here.


----------



## mathepac (23 Mar 2018)

Leo said:


> Wind turbine syndrome, you know, like the opposite of the placebo effect where cranks convince themselves the presence of turbines is damaging their health so much they make themselves ill.


Which is one aspect of environmental damage. Given the number of wind-farms you have visited, live in proximity to and studied, what aspect of turbine farm operation is most likely to damage human health and well-being?

For a serious overview, from multiple perspectives, rather than your unwarranted flippancy about a serious matter, have a look here: [broken link removed]

Unfortunately, electricity from the wind farms won't magic itself to the nearest distribution point so underground ducting and cabling features in these developments as do access roads and site navigation tracks, none of which get added to the appalling environmental damage windfarms cause. 

Concrete features heavily in these developments, foundations, concrete ducting, paths, roadways, etc. and the cement industry contributes in excess of 5% of all CO2 worldwide. Conversely concrete may help reduce air-borne sulfur dioxide, a source of acid rain, by a small amount.


----------



## mathepac (23 Mar 2018)

For @Leo "Assessing the effects of wind turbines on human health is an emerging field and conducting further research into the effects of wind turbines (and environmental changes) on human health, emotional and physical, is warranted." The scientific view is less dismissive than yours. I'll maybe stick with the science, although this is only one of many such studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179699/


----------



## Purple (26 Mar 2018)

Firefly said:


> Nuclear power stations...simples


In my opinion it is the only source of energy which can viably replace burning hydrocarbons.
Fusion may be here within the next 30 years. If so then we will have access to almost limitless energy. 
I like wind turbines and solar and wave power are a nice idea but only nuclear power provides a relatively safe and environmentally friendly option.


----------



## AlbacoreA (26 Mar 2018)

Why are solar and wave power not safe and environmentally friendly?


----------



## Purple (27 Mar 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> Why are solar and wave power not safe and environmentally friendly?


Not particularly environmentally friendly and they certainly aren't viable options to replace hydrocarbons any time soon.

It is interesting that so much attention is given to car emissions, particularly the emissions from diesel cars, when the largest 16 container ships in the world emit as much sulphur as all the cars in the world; a large container ship currently emits as much as 50 million cars.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Mar 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> Why are solar and wave power not safe and environmentally friendly?


----------



## dub_nerd (27 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> It is interesting that so much attention is given to car emissions, particularly the emissions from diesel cars, when the largest 16 container ships in the world emit as much sulphur as all the cars in the world; a large container ship currently emits as much as 50 million cars.



Different kinds of pollutants though -- sulfur is only one of them. And it _is_ getting lots of attention -- marine bunker fuel is switching over to a low sulfur variety in 2020 so will be a thing of the past soon.



Purple said:


> In my opinion it is the only source of energy which can viably replace burning hydrocarbons.
> Fusion may be here within the next 30 years. If so then we will have access to almost limitless energy.
> I like wind turbines and solar and wave power are a nice idea but only nuclear power provides a relatively safe and environmentally friendly option.



Agree with you here. And MIT SPARC is only one of at least half a dozen serious commercial fusion efforts at the moment. Still a lot of hurdles to clear, but I'm quite optimistic about a credible fusion demo within a decade or so, well ahead of ITER.


----------



## Purple (27 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Different kinds of pollutants though -- sulfur is only one of them. And it _is_ getting lots of attention -- marine bunker fuel is switching over to a low sulfur variety in 2020 so will be a thing of the past soon.


 I thought that was only in harbours (as is the case in the EU now). China has changed it's omission standards for cars, reducing amount of sulphur emissions by cars from 50 to 10 ppm. That means the figure changes from 50 million cars to 93 million cars. N02 pollution levels from chips are similar to sulphur. It's not a good comparison though as car pollute where people live, ships less so. 



dub_nerd said:


> Agree with you here. And MIT SPARC is only one of at least half a dozen serious commercial fusion efforts at the moment. Still a lot of hurdles to clear, but I'm quite optimistic about a credible fusion demo within a decade or so, well ahead of ITER.


Hopefully there is a rational rather than ideological response from the public.


----------



## dub_nerd (27 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> I thought that was only in harbours (as is the case in the EU now).



No, there's still a difference between the global limits and emission control areas, but the new global limit will be 0.5% (down from 3.5%), lower than the ECA limit of 1.5% up to 2010 (but which is now down to 0.1% since 2015).



Purple said:


> Hopefully there is a rational rather than ideological response [to nuclear fusion] from the public.



Hopefully, though I'd have my concerns. There's still a low level of waste from fusion, from activation of shielding by fast neutrons*. And the most likely fuel includes tritium which must be initially produced from more conventional reactors**. Both of these problems are miniscule in the overall scheme of things, but never underestimate mass hysteria.

* unless we hit the Holy Grail of aneutronic fusion.
** ... but can than be bred from a lithium blanket in the fusor


----------



## Leo (27 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> For @Leo "Assessing the effects of wind turbines on human health is an emerging field and conducting further research into the effects of wind turbines (and environmental changes) on human health, emotional and physical, is warranted." The scientific view is less dismissive than yours. I'll maybe stick with the science, although this is only one of many such studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179699/




Pretty much in line with what I was referring to. From your link: 



> To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects.


----------



## Purple (28 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> * unless we hit the Holy Grail of aneutronic fusion.


We are a long way off from even approaching getting any reactor to 6.6 billion degrees Celsius (or 1.1 Billion under pressure confinement). The whole technology is really exciting though.


----------



## dub_nerd (28 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> We are a long way off from even approaching getting any reactor to 6.6 billion degrees Celsius (or 1.1 Billion under pressure confinement). The whole technology is really exciting though.


For that reason, aneutronic fusion is unlikely in the thermalised environment of a tokamak. But you have the non-Maxwellian regime in a Polywell, and focused laser approaches, that could conceivably come to fruition. I suppose it wouldn't be the Holy Grail if it was easy! 

But I'd happily take tokamak fusion with a conventional water boiler and a bit of short half-life low-level waste. Even that would start Agricultural+Industrial Revolution 2.0.


----------



## Purple (28 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> For that reason, aneutronic fusion is unlikely in the thermalised environment of a tokamak. But you have the non-Maxwellian regime in a Polywell, and focused laser approaches, that could conceivably come to fruition. I suppose it wouldn't be the Holy Grail if it was easy!


 To the layman that's suspending plasma hotter than the sun in a doughnut (torus) shape using magnetic fields. Yea, it's really cool technology but really needs to be stable.



dub_nerd said:


> But I'd happily take tokamak fusion with a conventional water boiler and a bit of short half-life low-level waste. Even that would start Agricultural+Industrial Revolution 2.0.


 Agreed.


----------



## Firefly (13 Apr 2018)

This looks very promising for electric cars:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/v...-road-charges-moving-vehicles-video-explainer

Write up here:
https://newatlas.com/eroadarlanda-sweden-electric-highway/54197/

A few of these strips on our main motorways (which could be tolled) would ease range anxiety in a big way...


----------



## mathepac (13 Apr 2018)

I had that technology decades ago. Big boys Scalextric, well done Sweden.


----------



## meepman (19 Apr 2018)

I think so. Diesel is still the only alternative for mpg and distance. I have been thinking of buying a electric car but the range isn't enough at the moment. I will probably have to wait another 10 years for that to change.

What bugs me is you can drive a 30 year old car and pay 56 euros a year tax and the pollution from the exhaust is extremely high. Or you can buy a pre 2008 car for 2000 euros and pay 700 euros a year for a 2 litre.  Or you can buy a 2018 car for 30000 euros and pay 200-300 euros a year car tax  which has similar emissions to the pre 2008 car.

Who made that up? What a mess.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (19 Apr 2018)

meepman said:


> a 30 year old car and pay 56 euros a year tax


 
.... I have a neighbour; both he and his wife drive DOE exempt Land Rovers as daily drivers... €56 road tax, classic insurance and both vehicles spew out fumes.

There are a few classic mercs locally too being used as daily drivers.

The system is being abused wholesale.


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Apr 2018)

Most classic insurance has very limited mileage. 

Also you have to consider the environmental impact of making a car vs reusing an old car.


----------



## Leo (20 Apr 2018)

meepman said:


> Or you can buy a 2018 car for 30000 euros and pay 200-300 euros a year car tax which has similar emissions to the pre 2008 car.
> 
> Who made that up? What a mess.



Yep, the current regime taxes you based on your capacity to pollute. The only way of addressing actual pollution directly in via tax on fuel, but in such a model diesel would be considerably more expensive than petrol, and the haulier and farming lobby groups are doing all they can to prevent it.


----------



## meepman (20 Apr 2018)

Leo said:


> Yep, the current regime taxes you based on your capacity to pollute. The only way of addressing actual pollution directly in via tax on fuel, but in such a model diesel would be considerably more expensive than petrol, and the haulier and farming lobby groups are doing all they can to prevent it.



Yes I agree on that, but it is the unfairness of pre 2009 cars being taxed heavily. Some are as efficient co2 wise as newer cars. Not thought through at all.


----------



## mathepac (20 Apr 2018)

Anyone see the Channel 4 documentary last week on diesel truck engines, and no doubt bus engines although they didn't feature? An electronic device fools the engine into thinking it's getting the prescribed dosage of AdBlue anti-pollutant, but in fact, the engines with the device fitted consume no AdBlue and do not throw up warning lights on the dash. The device can be deactivated for emissions testing and on or off, it is undetectable by current diagnostic equipment.  Widely available on the internet, I guarantee they are fitted to trucks and buses here too.

The government of course continues to target the private motorist for penalties and ignore the hauliers' transgressions.


----------



## RichInSpirit (6 Aug 2018)

Interesting that Toyota has moved completely away from diesel engines in their passenger cars and Honda has introduced a diesel engine for the Civic this year where there wasn't one before.


----------



## RichInSpirit (6 Aug 2018)

Also interesting that both Toyota and Honda have a hydrogen fueled car model in the USA. 
Hydrogen would be the way to go for cleaner cars instead if electric in my opinion.


----------



## Zenith63 (6 Aug 2018)

RichInSpirit said:


> Hydrogen would be the way to go for cleaner cars instead if electric in my opinion.


Curious why you think this?  Personally I think the fact that we already have an incredible distribution network for the fuel used by battery electric cars - electricity is available to every home, office, building and lightpost in the country - the idea of trying to roll out a distribution network for hydrogen is crazy.  It's also not the safest thing to be playing around with, from Wikipedia: "Hydrogen possesses the NFPA 704's highest rating of 4 on the flammability scale because it is flammable when mixed even in small amounts with ordinary air; hydrogen gas and normal air can ignite at as low as 4% air due to the oxygen in the air and the simplicity and chemical properties of the reaction. hydrogen poses unique challenges due to its ease of leaking as a gaseous fuel, low-energy ignition, wide range of combustible fuel-air mixtures, buoyancy, and its ability to embrittle metals that must be accounted for to ensure safe operation."

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but with battery electric cars improving (in-terms of range and price) at a very rapid pace, I think hydrogen fuelled cars will be bypassed fairly quickly.


----------



## Leo (13 Aug 2018)

Zenith63 said:


> Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but with battery electric cars improving (in-terms of range and price) at a very rapid pace, I think hydrogen fuelled cars will be bypassed fairly quickly.



There are quite a few downsides of BEVs (charge times, size/weight/range, access to charging infrastructure, reliance on dirty electricity, deminishing battery capacity over time, cost of battery repair/replacement, rare earth mineral supplies, etc.) that may never be adequately overcome, and so hydrogen is still worth examining as an alternative. 

Japan have had hydrogen fuel stations for a number of years now, some that generate the fuel on site extracting hydrogen from water using excess solar power. So you just replace the petrol / diesel infrastructure in the existing stations with those if they can scale up the hydrogen generation.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Aug 2018)

I may have posted this before...

https://www.dw.com/en/japan-gets-serious-about-hydrogen-fueling-stations/a-42828215



> Toyota, Nissan and Honda formed a joint venture with major gas and energy firms to build 80 new hydrogen stations in the next four years to add to the roughly 100 such stations already in operation in Japan.


----------



## Zenith63 (13 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> There are quite a few downsides of BEVs (charge times, size/weight/range, access to charging infrastructure, reliance on dirty electricity, deminishing battery capacity over time, cost of battery repair/replacement, rare earth mineral supplies, etc.) that may never be adequately overcome, and so hydrogen is still worth examining as an alternative.


I don't mean to be annoying now, but I think it's worth discussing some of these points as they're fairly often repeated online and there's little actual basis for most of them in my view.

charge times - The vast majority of charging for the average person is done at home overnight.  A typical 32A charger will refill ~7kWh of a car's battery every hour, so stick it on charge at 7pm and by 7am the next morning you could have added 84kWh or ~400km range (depending on the car of course).  Realistically most people do more like 50km driving in a day, so a couple of hours on the charger has them getting up in the morning with a full "tank".  For those occasions where people need to use quick chargers on longer journeys, these are increasing in speed constantly.  A 50kW quick charger will add 80% charge to an older Leaf in 30 minutes, 150kW chargers are now in the market and 2-300 are not far off.  So personally I think charging time is an overblown issue, but is rapidly becoming irrelevant for the vast majority of people.

size/weight/range - Not quite sure what you mean by size/weight, but FWIW I find the extra bit of weight in a Nissan Leaf actually makes it feel like a much more sturdy and safe car on the road, particularly motorways.  In-terms of range again I think this is overblown even with current BEV car ranges, sure there are edge cases, but most people drive less than 100km per day so even the smallest 24kWh Leaf is perfectly sufficient.  But ranges are increasingly constantly, with the likes of the Hyundai Kona having enough range to drive from Cork to Belfast without stopping.  So certainly people should pick a BEV with the right range to suit their needs, but for the vast majority of people range is not an issue.

access to charging infrastructure - Electricity is available to every building and lamp post in Ireland compared to only 1000 petrol/diesel stations.  Of course charging ports are required at these locations, but as ranges of cars increase so rapidly, the focus will shift more-and-more to charging at home and having a full tank as the day starts with less need to stop on motorways etc.  So again I think this is an issue that is passing off quickly.

reliance on dirty electricity - Clean generation of electricity is improving every year and accelerating.  Notwithstanding that, the process to create hydrogen for fuelling cars uses electricity so really the issue of direct electricity is applicable to both BEVs and FCEVs.  FCEVs also waste far more energy converting electricity to hydrogen and back again in the car to drive the electric motor.

deminishing battery capacity over time - This one is certainly a non-issue.  The Nissan Leafs unfortunately did not include cooling/heating of the battery pack so see significant degradation in hotter climates (thought in the Irish climate this is not a big issue at all).  Tesla do include cooling however, and their cars will often have less than 10% degradation after 250k kilometres - and keep in-mind this is the first "proper" attempt at building a mass produced car with battery cooling, this will surely be improved upon as more manufacturers get involved and technology evolves beyond this first attempt.  So again I think this is an issue that has already passed.

cost of battery repair/replacement - The battery packs in Nissan Leafs have proven to be ridiculously reliable since the car came out (nearly 10 years ago) and you'd have to assume reliability will only increase as the tech is evolved.  Warranties are also often 5-8 years on the battery.  So I think repair cost is kinda irrelevant as they're about as likely as having to replace a full engine in a regular car, and the cost is similar if not cheaper.  Not sure replacement will be required as they nail the cooling piece to keep batteries going longer.  However even if you did want to do it after your Tesla hits 500k kilometres, it would be about the same cost as replacing the engine in a regular car, which would also need to be done around this mileage anyway.

rare earth mineral supplies - In most cases the perceived shortages are because of a lack of mining infrastructure, not of the material itself.  Lithium being the one most often highlighted, even though it's actually really common on Earth, we just don't have the mining infrastructure for it because the demand is a recent phenomenon.  Cobalt is the other one mentioned, and the likes of Tesla have been working to get that down to tiny levels in their cells, hoping to remove it completely in the coming years.




> Japan have had hydrogen fuel stations for a number of years now, some that generate the fuel on site extracting hydrogen from water using excess solar power. So you just replace the petrol / diesel infrastructure in the existing stations with those if they can scale up the hydrogen generation.


Do you not feel this is just grasping to the concept of petrol/diesel stations because that's what we're used to, rather than because it actually makes sense?  Why would anybody want to drive to a fuel station when they could wake up with their BEV tank full every morning?  Why would you want to pump or carry around a substance as dangerous as hydrogen when you can just plug-in and charge at home and carry around batteries that have proven themselves so safe in things from phones (Samsung excepting  ) to pace-makers for decades.


----------



## Leo (13 Aug 2018)

Zenith63 said:


> I don't mean to be annoying now



Not annoying at all, they are points worth discussing and I've been known to be wrong in the past  



Zenith63 said:


> charge times - The vast majority of charging for the average person is done at home overnight. A typical 32A charger will refill ~7kWh of a car's battery every hour...



Absolutely correct, and for many people, this will never be an issue. But for high mileage drivers, the need to wait around during the day for a top-up is a major inconvenience, and there are already reports of queues at the public fast charge points. The Regulator has spoken out against developing the current infrastructure any further until ESB Networks move to a paid model so the general public isn't subsidising EV drivers any more. 

As ownership numbers rise, what happens where there are multiple cars in a household? 32A chargers are the max that can be installed here, with 16A the limit in homes that already have a high electricity demand such as those with heat pumps as the standard domestic electricity supply here is 12 or 16kVA. Higher capacity supply is available, but not in all locations, and they attract extra charges.



Zenith63 said:


> 150kW chargers are now in the market and 2-300 are not far off.  So personally I think charging time is an overblown issue, but is rapidly becoming irrelevant for the vast majority of people.



That'll certainly address some of the public charge point queuing issues, but the power demands for these mean they won't work in a domestic setting. But as battery capacity rises to meet the demands of larger vehicles, even with high power charging points motorists will still end up waiting for extended periods. 



Zenith63 said:


> size/weight/range - Not quite sure what you mean by size/weight, but FWIW I find the extra bit of weight in a Nissan Leaf actually makes it feel like a much more sturdy and safe car on the road, particularly motorways.



What I mean there is as the size of the car increases, or the range is expanded, a larger, heavier battery is required. While the car may feel more sturdy, extra weight is not a good thing, no one ever added weight to a race car to improve its handling or performance   The range of the Leaf may well suit most journeys, but the majority of Irish drivers don't want to drive Leaf size cars. 



Zenith63 said:


> access to charging infrastructure - Electricity is available to every building and lamp post in Ireland compared to only 1000 petrol/diesel stations.  Of course charging ports are required at these locations, but as ranges of cars increase so rapidly, the focus will shift more-and-more to charging at home and having a full tank as the day starts with less need to stop on motorways etc.  So again I think this is an issue that is passing off quickly.



No lamp post in the country could power a charging station. Where I work (~600 people), the building supply is capable of power 4 EV charge points. Any more would require upgrading the lines from the local substation at significant cost. Even now there are occasional issues with those who have EVs getting access to the points.



Zenith63 said:


> reliance on dirty electricity - Clean generation of electricity is improving every year and accelerating.  Notwithstanding that, the process to create hydrogen for fuelling cars uses electricity so really the issue of direct electricity is applicable to both BEVs and FCEVs.  FCEVs also waste far more energy converting electricity to hydrogen and back again in the car to drive the electric motor.



Yep, the energy costs in extracting hydrogen is a significant downside currently, but one that should improve over time. In Japan, in many cases where electrolysis is used, it is powered by excess PV supply, and so it is effectively free energy. Many utilities that offer feed in tariffs already have problems with over supply of PV power during the middle of the day. Some of that could be diverted towards hydrogen production.



Zenith63 said:


> deminishing battery capacity over time....  So again I think this is an issue that has already passed.



There isn't an existing battery chemistry whose capacity doesn't degrade over time. Even the $12k lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum-oxide batteries as used in Teslas suffer from oxidation. There's a lot of research going on in this area, but we're a long way from a solution yet. 



Zenith63 said:


> cost of battery repair/replacement - The battery packs in Nissan Leafs have proven to be ridiculously reliable since the car came out (nearly 10 years ago) ....  So I think repair cost is kinda irrelevant as they're about as likely as having to replace a full engine in a regular car, and the cost is similar if not cheaper.



This will be more a factor in crash repairs. There are already specialist repair shops popping up in the US due to the manufacturer battery repair / replacements costs. A full Leaf battery replacement is rumoured to cost €6k (reduced by €1k if you return the old battery undamaged). Replacement second hand ICEs can cost as low as a few hundred from breakers yards, I'm not sure if will be a viable aftermarket for used EV batteries as the recycle values will be so high.  



Zenith63 said:


> rare earth mineral supplies - In most cases the perceived shortages are because of a lack of mining infrastructure



That's fair enough I guess a lot of the concern around these elements is in terms of the ability to scale up production, competing demands and the stability of countries that dominate the supply. But I guess some of those concerns could equally apply to oil producers. 



Zenith63 said:


> Do you not feel this is just grasping to the concept of petrol/diesel stations because that's what we're used to, rather than because it actually makes sense?  Why would anybody want to drive to a fuel station when they could wake up with their BEV tank full every morning?



I think people are slow to accept anything that they perceive as a retrograde step. Lower range and the time taken to charge an EV Vs a fuel refill will always be an issue. There are many people for whom a home charging point isn't an option, many others with multiple cars don't want to be messing around moving cars or making sure no one else needs to use the charger overnight. Those limitations require more planning ahead, so  



Zenith63 said:


> Why would you want to pump or carry around a substance as dangerous as hydrogen when you can just plug-in and charge at home and carry around batteries that have proven themselves so safe in things from phones (Samsung excepting  ) to pace-makers for decades.



Hydrogen is regularly shipped on the roads here and elsewhere via bulk tankers and smaller cylinders, I don't recall hearing of any issues. The dangers of hydrogen as a fuel are somewhat misunderstood too I think. When ruptured and ignited, hydrogen flames dissipate far faster than petrol flames and so might actually result in far less severe consequences. NASA did a lot of experimentation as to its viability and safety as a fuel source, the only times they were able to generate an explosion was with the introduction of liquid or crystalised oxygen.


----------



## RichInSpirit (13 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> the only times they were able to generate an explosion was with the introduction of liquid or crystalised oxygen.



I've seen 2 lead acid batteries explode one of them I caused myself when I accidentally short circuited the positive and negative poles ☺. Nearly blew the head off myself but thankfully no acid got on me.
I think hydrogen was the culprit.
But i'm still a hydrogen fan.


----------



## Zenith63 (14 Aug 2018)

Some thoughts below Leo.  And probably worth saying that I'm really just responding to your assertion that we need to develop FCEVs as an alternative to BEVs, because the BEV issues are possibly insurmountable.  I'm definitely not arguing that there are no issues with BEVs at the moment, I'm just saying they're all short-lived, much shorter than the timescale of rolling out FCEV infrastructure .



Leo said:


> Not annoying at all, they are points worth discussing and I've been known to be wrong in the past
> Absolutely correct, and for many people, this will never be an issue. But for high mileage drivers, the need to wait around during the day for a top-up is a major inconvenience, and there are already reports of queues at the public fast charge points. The Regulator has spoken out against developing the current infrastructure any further until ESB Networks move to a paid model so the general public isn't subsidising EV drivers any more.


To be honest I don't see an issue with those high mileage drivers just staying in petrol/diesel cars until BEVs reach a point where it is OK for them, even if they never do.  Getting 80/90% of drivers into BEVs would have a massive effect on air pollution and carbon output of the country, we can worry about the last 20/10% when we get there.



> As ownership numbers rise, what happens where there are multiple cars in a household? 32A chargers are the max that can be installed here, with 16A the limit in homes that already have a high electricity demand such as those with heat pumps as the standard domestic electricity supply here is 12 or 16kVA. Higher capacity supply is available, but not in all locations, and they attract extra charges.


We have two BEVs at home, commute across the city and charge without issue to be honest.  But it comes down to the actual usage of the average person, most of us only drive 50km per day so only need to add say 10kWh per night - plug both cars into 16A chargers and leave it overnight, the chargers will figure out how to charge the cars sequentially if required to avoid overloading the home.  I do get that there are edge cases where two members of the family drive 200km each per day, but they fit into the 5% of people that can keep using petrol/diesel for the time-being.



> That'll certainly address some of the public charge point queuing issues, but the power demands for these mean they won't work in a domestic setting. But as battery capacity rises to meet the demands of larger vehicles, even with high power charging points motorists will still end up waiting for extended periods.
> 
> What I mean there is as the size of the car increases, or the range is expanded, a larger, heavier battery is required. While the car may feel more sturdy, extra weight is not a good thing, no one ever added weight to a race car to improve its handling or performance   The range of the Leaf may well suit most journeys, but the majority of Irish drivers don't want to drive Leaf size cars.


Weight and battery capacities are only going to rise so far though, so this isn't an unbounded problem that we just keep needing to pile on charging-power to solve.  The Model X is about as big and heavy as electric cars should get and is certainly well beyond what the size/weight your average EU citizen is likely to want.  So honestly I don't see this as a big issue in the short-medium term, batteries for Joe Average will top-out at 80-100kWh I'd guess and if charging continues to get faster (which it surely will, saw an article for a 450kW charger this morning :O ) this problem will fade away.



> No lamp post in the country could power a charging station. Where I work (~600 people), the building supply is capable of power 4 EV charge points. Any more would require upgrading the lines from the local substation at significant cost. Even now there are occasional issues with those who have EVs getting access to the points.


Yeah to be honest I actually agree here, I think once battery ranges increase and the vast majority of charging shifts to home, this need to destination charge will drop off big time, which will be good because as you say it will never be feasible to plug in 200 cars at a single office.  I think lamp-posts could be useful for apartment dwellers to get an overnight slow charge though, again not for somebody commuting 200km a day, but for your average Joe doing 50km it would be totally fine to charge at a couple of kWs.




> There isn't an existing battery chemistry whose capacity doesn't degrade over time. Even the $12k lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum-oxide batteries as used in Teslas suffer from oxidation. There's a lot of research going on in this area, but we're a long way from a solution yet.


Agreed but we don't need to reach a point where degradation reaches 0%.  Tesla is just the first cut at it, assuming it improves does it really matter if a car loses 5% range after it hits 300k kilometres?  Assuming the car had a few hundred kilometre range when it was bought new, and the owner is charging at home and ending up with a full tank every morning, I think 5-10% loss of range after huge mileages will be unnoticeable.  Sure petrol/diesel engines get way less efficient at these sorts of mileages and nobody blinks an eyelid.
I think the "wilting Leafs" in hot climates have done a lot of damage to the BEV movement by highlighting this battery degradation issue, but once the last uncooled battery pack is sold this issue will hopefully leave peoples' minds.





> I think people are slow to accept anything that they perceive as a retrograde step. Lower range and the time taken to charge an EV Vs a fuel refill will always be an issue.


I think it is just that though, perception.  I was worried about it as well buying my first EV, within a few weeks I realised it was far handier to wake up with a full battery every morning than to be fluting around with dirty pumps in petrol stations a couple of times a week in the wind and rain.  We'll have to agree to disagree that it will "always" be an issue because I think with larger batteries and quicker charging coming out constantly, I'd say it won't be an issue for more than a couple of years nevermind always .



> There are many people for whom a home charging point isn't an option, many others with multiple cars don't want to be messing around moving cars or making sure no one else needs to use the charger overnight. Those limitations require more planning ahead, so


Two chargers solves any issue moving cars around.  But again I think these are the minority of cases that yeah we may not be able to solve today, but lets try and get the 80-90% of people across as quickly as possible and take that benefit, the rest can be figured out then.  For reference, 12% of homes in Ireland are apartments and I'm sure some people don't have suitable driveways or wiring for chargers as well, but we are talking about the minority and what we need is a quick and big impact on pollution.




> Hydrogen is regularly shipped on the roads here and elsewhere via bulk tankers and smaller cylinders, I don't recall hearing of any issues. The dangers of hydrogen as a fuel are somewhat misunderstood too I think. When ruptured and ignited, hydrogen flames dissipate far faster than petrol flames and so might actually result in far less severe consequences. NASA did a lot of experimentation as to its viability and safety as a fuel source, the only times they were able to generate an explosion was with the introduction of liquid or crystalised oxygen.


I don't know a huge amount about it to be honest, but I'd guess the amount of hydrogen being shipped today must be absolutely tiny compared to the quantity required to replace petrol and diesel, which would surely scale up the risk significantly.  From the first paragraph of Wikipedia - "Hydrogen possesses the NFPA 704's highest rating of 4 on the flammability scale because it is flammable when mixed even in small amounts with ordinary air; hydrogen gas and normal air can ignite at as low as 4% air due to the oxygen in the air and the simplicity and chemical properties of the reaction. ... The storage and use of hydrogen poses unique challenges due to its ease of leaking as a gaseous fuel, low-energy ignition, wide range of combustible fuel-air mixtures, buoyancy, and its ability to embrittle metals that must be accounted for to ensure safe operation. Liquid hydrogen poses additional challenges due to its increased density and the extremely low temperatures needed to keep it in liquid form.".

PS. Sorry for the length of that, but I like thinking these things through and writing them out, it's when you realise whether you really understand something or not


----------



## Firefly (14 Aug 2018)

Lots of interesting points in this thread. I think for couples, an electric car could be very useful combined with a petrol/diesel for the longer journeys.

I note the gov are looking at extending the 0% BIK rules for electric cars to upto 5 years. I think this will be the biggest game changer. 4 year lease only deals for a Leaf are around 350 euro per month. If I could write that off as a business expense and not pay BIK the net cost to me would be around the 160 euro a month range and I'd happily get on then as I would probably save that in fuel, servicing, tax and all the rest....


----------



## Leo (15 Aug 2018)

Zenith63 said:


> Some thoughts below Leo. And probably worth saying that I'm really just responding to your assertion that we need to develop FCEVs as an alternative to BEVs, because the BEV issues are possibly insurmountable. I'm definitely not arguing that there are no issues with BEVs at the moment, I'm just saying they're all short-lived, much shorter than the timescale of rolling out FCEV infrastructure .



To be honest, I'm not convinced hydrogen FCEVs are the answer either, I just think longer term, we need to move beyond lugging a huge battery around and so think it's still worth pursuing. I'm thinking longer term and what will be viable for the larger cars people favour and commercial vehicles/ buses, the vehicles responsible for the majority of emissions.

Toyota, Honda & Nissan formed a joint venture to roll out more hydrogen fuel station across Japan as well despite all being major players in BEVs, so they must think there's something to it too. Hydrogen fuel cells have other applications and that is likely driving some of that investment (Honda already offer domestic fuel cell systems), and as the process/ technology for on-site hydrogen extraction improves, the need for large scale infrastructure falls. Other countries that incentivised PV with feed in tariffs now face issues with over-supply during the middle of the day, I think one potential neat solution to this would be to divert this excess to produce hydrogen. If that can do done at source, even better.



Zenith63 said:


> To be honest I don't see an issue with those high mileage drivers just staying in petrol/diesel cars until BEVs reach a point where it is OK for them, even if they never do.  Getting 80/90% of drivers into BEVs would have a massive effect on air pollution and carbon output of the country, we can worry about the last 20/10% when we get there.



While moving a lot of low mileage users off fossil fuel will make an impact, we can't ignore the contribution of the high mileage users, commercial vehicles, trucks, buses, agricultural machinery, etc..  If that last 20% of users are responsible for 90% of the emissions, does the investment pay off?



Zenith63 said:


> We have two BEVs at home, commute across the city and charge without issue to be honest.  But it comes down to the actual usage of the average person, most of us only drive 50km per day so only need to add say 10kWh per night - plug both cars into 16A chargers and leave it overnight, the chargers will figure out how to charge the cars sequentially if required to avoid overloading the home.



With increasing urbanisation, the number of those with space for two home chargers is reducing. Around where I live many houses don't even have a single car driveway, but most houses have two and in rare cases, up to four cars. Of course if increasing urbanisation resulted in better public transport, then a lot of those problems dissipate, but who has confidence in any Irish government getting that right?



Zenith63 said:


> Weight and battery capacities are only going to rise so far though, so this isn't an unbounded problem that we just keep needing to pile on charging-power to solve.



Progress will certainly continue, but I'm not sure anyone is predicting a short to medium term future where battery capacity by weight can double or more.



Zenith63 said:


> The Model X is about as big and heavy as electric cars should get and is certainly well beyond what the size/weight your average EU citizen is likely to want.



And I guess that's where I see an issue. Should the focus just be on smaller modes of transport or longer term do we need to find a solution that works across all vehicle types? The Tesla X isn't that much larger than the Mondeo or 5 series, (10cm longer than the 5 series) lot's of people here want cars that size and even bigger. The X is 60% heavier than the Mondeo, that's certainly an issue for handling and wear part lifespan.



Zenith63 said:


> saw an article for a 450kW charger this morning :O ) this problem will fade away.



Faster charging speeds up the oxidation problem. 



Zenith63 said:


> I think lamp-posts could be useful for apartment dwellers to get an overnight slow charge though, again not for somebody commuting 200km a day, but for your average Joe doing 50km it would be totally fine to charge at a couple of kWs.



Even that would need complete re-wiring of lamp posts across the country and the associated installation of charging points. I've no idea what that might cost, would every local authority and MUD management company want to get into the business of charging points? I'll leave out the extra generation capacity issues, we likely need to do something there to address predicted data centre demand, so the revenue from charging points might speed up the payback for that investment.



Zenith63 said:


> Agreed but we don't need to reach a point where degradation reaches 0%.  Tesla is just the first cut at it, assuming it improves does it really matter if a car loses 5% range after it hits 300k kilometres?  Assuming the car had a few hundred kilometre range when it was bought new, and the owner is charging at home and ending up with a full tank every morning, I think 5-10% loss of range after huge mileages will be unnoticeable.  Sure petrol/diesel engines get way less efficient at these sorts of mileages and nobody blinks an eyelid.



There have been a few trials and lots of owner self-reporting documenting battery degradation, some of these reports would put me off jumping onboard EVs for now. Tesla seem the be at the top of this at the moment with a much slower rate of degradation, but then, for a $12k battery, you'd certainly hope that'd be the case .



Zenith63 said:


> I think the "wilting Leafs" in hot climates have done a lot of damage to the BEV movement by highlighting this battery degradation issue, but once the last uncooled battery pack is sold this issue will hopefully leave peoples' minds.



Yeah, I'm discounting that completely as that was an issue of poor design. Nissan now offer a warranty on 70% capacity in the US market at least to counter that publicity.



Zenith63 said:


> but we are talking about the minority and what we need is a quick and big impact on pollution.



Agreed on the need for a big impact, but I not yet convinced this can deliver the impact it's being hyped up to. It's an easy win for the government to push and make it look like it's doing something. They set targets in terms of percentage of EV ownership and not in terms of any real environmental impact. Like some of the other measures they've introduced, I fear it's more window dressing.



Zenith63 said:


> The storage and use of hydrogen poses unique challenges due to its ease of leaking as a gaseous fuel, low-energy ignition, wide range of combustible fuel-air mixtures, buoyancy, and its ability to embrittle metals that must be accounted for to ensure safe operation.



Certainly, it does face significant challenges, but some of its other advantages mean it's shouldn't be discounted yet I think.



Zenith63 said:


> PS. Sorry for the length of that, but I like thinking these things through and writing them out, it's when you realise whether you really understand something or not



All good!


----------



## Firefly (15 Aug 2018)

Here's what we need!


----------



## RichInSpirit (15 Aug 2018)

This interesting article popped up on my Google news earlier.
Liquid recharging of electric cars. 
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-liquid-battery-flexible-energy-storage.amp


----------



## johnwilliams (17 Aug 2018)

dont know much about this so a question 
these home charging points are they wired directly into house main supply inside out  or are they wired separately  just wondering effect on internal supply to house and what kind of disruption power point construction


----------



## Zenith63 (17 Aug 2018)

Generally they would be connected to the main consumer board in the house yes. There are other ways of doing it though, depending on how easy it is to get the cable from the consumer board to where you want the charger.


----------



## Leo (20 Aug 2018)

johnwilliams said:


> these home charging points are they wired directly into house main supply inside out  or are they wired separately  just wondering effect on internal supply to house and what kind of disruption power point construction



They are always wired from the house's consumer unit (fuse board), they need to be fed after the meter so they know what to charge you, they also need their own isolation switch due to the loads involved. The level of disruption involved in installation depends on where your consumer unit is located and where you want the charge point installed.

If it's an older house or you already have heavy loads such as heat pumps, and want a 32A capable fast charger you will likely have to apply for an upgraded supply to your house. If you don't already, you might consider getting a night rate meter installed so you can use lower priced electricity when charging overnight.


----------



## Zenith63 (20 Aug 2018)

> They are always wired from the house's consumer unit


Just to call-out that it's quite possible for your electrician to create a primary and secondary fuse-board setup.  In this setup, the feed from the ESB meter goes into the new primary fuse board (hopefully nearer to the meter box and where you want the charger) and from this you feed your charger and your secondary fuse-board (which used to be the primary one).  This can avoid having to cable to the existing fuse-board if it is difficult to do so and can avoid having to upgrade the existing fuse-board if it or its feed is not rated for the extra 16/32A.


----------



## Leo (20 Aug 2018)

Zenith63 said:


> This can avoid having to cable to the existing fuse-board if it is difficult to do so and can avoid having to upgrade the existing fuse-board if it or its feed is not rated for the extra 16/32A.



The feed from the meter must connected directly to the main consumer unit where it is protected by the primary breaker. Any secondary unit must be wired after this breaker and so connection via the main consumer unit is mandatory.

Unless you're rewiring the house, creating a new primary CU wouldn't make sense in the majority of cases, it'd just mean more rewiring and costs for no real gain. You're looking to avoid running a 6 or 10mm T&E cable for the EV charge point from the main CU, only to require running a 16mm one from the new CU back to the existing CU? I'm not sure you're get a RECI to sign-off on that arrangement.


----------



## Zenith63 (20 Aug 2018)

Ah yeah not common at all, but just saying the charger does't "always" need to be run to the existing CU.

Imagine a case where your meter box is at one side of a large home, you want to put the charger beside it, but your existing CU is at the far side of the house.  Your sparks can just break the 16sqm from the meter box to the existing CU and insert a new CU in there, adding a main fuse etc. and spec'ing it correctly to have it as the primary and the existing unit becomes the secondary.  No need to run a new cable to the existing CU to achieve this, just short runs near the meter box and charger.  Have this done myself and seen it elsewhere, all RECI signed-off.


----------



## RichInSpirit (11 Jul 2019)

Was going looking at a diesel car the morning I started this thread.
Didn't buy at the time and ended up driving a lovely petrol bangeronomic since. 
Now bought a diesel bangeronomic. Fuel consumption looking good. Got 59mpg from the first fill and with revised driving got 68mpg from the next fill.


----------



## 24601 (11 Jul 2019)

This is well worth a look to see what your total cost of ownership is: https://autocosts.info/IE
It's actually mad money.


----------



## Shelby219 (12 Jul 2019)

RETIRED2017 said:


> The electric car you buy today is already based on the past having said that I drive an electric car because it cost  very little to run there is a free charging point close to where I live ,I know the energy regulator is looking at changing the free charging point,
> When I bought car had less than 1000 km and had already lost most of its value,


Every one is talking about the low cost of running an electric vehicle, so when we all switch to electric, where are the government going to get the 1.5 billion+ that they collect from fuel tax and duty every year?Tax the electricity, tax the car? Cheap driving won't happen, if someone invented a car that would run on tap water, government would bring in a law to say you could only use water with a certain dye that you could only purchase from a particular place,that the money went back to government coffers, wise up guys and girls


----------



## Zenith63 (12 Jul 2019)

Shelby219 said:


> Every one is talking about the low cost of running an electric vehicle, so when we all switch to electric, where are the government going to get the 1.5 billion+ that they collect from fuel tax and duty every year?Tax the electricity, tax the car? Cheap driving won't happen, if someone invented a car that would run on tap water, government would bring in a law to say you could only use water with a certain dye that you could only purchase from a particular place,that the money went back to government coffers, wise up guys and girls


Somebody who bought an electric car back in 2010 has now had nearly ten years cheap motoring.  It will be at least another ten before enough people have changed over that taxes on EVs will need to be ramped up, so anybody buying today will still have plenty of cheap motoring...

As for where will the €1.5bn come from? The first €500m or so would come from not having to pay fines/carbon-credits for exceeding EU pollution limits. Another good chunk will come from increases in the carbon tax.  Then yeah I’d imagine road tax on EVs will go up. Cannot see tax in electricity being increased too much though as it would hit poorer people trying to heat and light their homes.

I know this is AskAboutMoney, but a switch to EVs is not just about saving money.  I would gladly pay an extra few quid a year to walk down a street and not have poisonous fumes pumped into my face. The recent EPA report on Dublin pollution suggested that you should try to carry children if you’re walking along a busy street to keep them up out of the fumes - seeing something like that in an official government document should really give people pause.


----------



## Firefly (12 Jul 2019)

Zenith63 said:


> Somebody who bought an electric car back in 2010 has now had nearly ten years cheap motoring.



As long as they didn't need to replace the batteries 









						nice bike, where do you put the batteries?
					






					www.youtube.com


----------

