# What are the Government really doing, to help the country move away from Diesel vehicles etc. ?



## MrEarl (30 Dec 2019)

Hi,

Does anyone know if Richard Bruton has rolled out a policy (or even, dare I suggest it, legislation) to enure that all Government Departments and State owned companies only buy electric vehicles, going forward ?​
It seems to me to be a fairly obviously one, if the government are supposed to be leading by example, and are serious about trying to meet 2030 targets. (cough * no one mention how far away we are from meeting 2020 targets, and the likely fines we're going to incur as a result * cough).

The Government could also go absolutely "mad" and:

ban the importation of second hand diesel vehicles (regardless of how late they'd be in doing this, better now than never),
remove the historic benefits to having diesel engine cars, such as cheaper road tax and fuel.

Notwithstanding the wonderful plan announced by Richard Bruton a couple of months ago, I'm not convinced that the Government are really doing anything even close to what they need to be doing, to help deal with the problem of our omissions levels, our over reliance on certain fossil fuels etc.

So, in addition to the above, my question to fellow members of AAM is this, what are the Government really doing, to help move the country away from Diesel vehicles etc ?


----------



## Zenith63 (30 Dec 2019)

More is certainly required to discourage diesel use where it is not really required, but there are fairly generous incentives in-place for electric vehicles to try and tempt people away from them -

€600 grant for home charger
50-75% off tolls
€120 road tax
€5000 grant off a new EV
€5000 off VRT on a new or imported EV
0% BIK on the first €50k
ACA to allow businesses write-off in year one
Small portion of the VAT can be reclaimed
Free on-street charging


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Dec 2019)

Think the free charging ended last month. I would not assume any of the other incentives to be permanent.


----------



## noproblem (30 Dec 2019)

Personally I think buying an electric motor vehicle at the moment is bordering on insanity. Sure, the world and its mother knows all about the state of the environment and the trouble coming down the road, isn't it all over the media every second of every day and night so there can be no lies or mistruths whatsoever in that? Alas, the electric vehicle is in the baby stage, as are the parts and everything else involved in it. In a years time, there's be more known and they'll be a little bit better, same in a year after that, etc, etc, etc. So, how much is the vehicle you buy today worth in a couple of years time? Oh dear, it'll be out of date, so will its battery and everything else as well. Goverments and politicians are wonderful at grooming the public, media like doing it as well, the millenials and greens plus the snowflakes cuddle up to one another as well, keeps them warm and on the same wavelength, helps them shout louder and everything else our green friends in radio and television love as well. Result being, that's all you're going to hear in the positive sense. Bunkum and balderdash I say. Just wait until everyone is told, no more diesel or petrol vehicles can be sold, no more quick deliveries by lorries, no more , no more, no more, they'll shout and then they'll be bye bye daisy's. Si I say, go ahead buy your electric toy and look at its worthless value in a years time or thereabouts. 

As for Zenith 63 and his above post with all the grants and vat back and free this that and the other? Oh my dear boy, what a shock you're in for when the powers that be have all you ducks in a row, that shock won't come from free electricity, but from an age old trick. Go on, have a guess? Thought you would, now go and put that in your pipe and have a good smoke! Enjoy.


----------



## Zenith63 (31 Dec 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Think the free charging ended last month. I would not assume any of the other incentives to be permanent.


On-street chargers are still free, motorway fast chargers no longer are. But absolutely none of these are permanent, they’re incentives for early adopters while EVs are still too expensive to make economical sense for most people. Was just detailing one of the things the government is doing as MrEarl asked for...


----------



## RichInSpirit (9 Jan 2020)

Diesel still the most desirable fuel for motorists. 38% of would be car purchasers interested in diesel. https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...c-cars-require-ever-more-incentives-1.4129716


----------



## RichInSpirit (9 Jan 2020)

Diesel mightn't be the worst choice in terms of CO2. To the best of my knowledge it beats petrol on CO2 emissions when looked at from a MPG or litres per 100km point of view.
I know it scores badly from the NOx point of view. But even from this angle I was looking at Renaults website and some of their diesel engines are now Euro 6 which they claim only emit 50% of the NOx emissions of the previous Euro standard engines.
Also from looking at the Renault website, car manufacturers aren't really serious about selling electric cars to anyone who need to do much more than 250km without needing a charge.


----------



## losttheplot (9 Jan 2020)

Renault may not be serious about selling electric cars to people who need to do more than 250km with out a charge because that's the Range of the older Zoe. Kia and Hyundai would happily cover you for 400km.


----------



## Cameo (29 Feb 2020)

I commute mostly by bike in Dublin, I find it a bit depressing that diesels are unlikely to be banned for the rest of my career and therefore commuting by bike! Ban them I say.

unfortunately governments are not really cut out to do the necessary on the environment.

my 13 year old cycles to school the odd day, he complains of Finding it hard to breath because of the fumes, particularly around 2 schools enroute where cars are parked up droppo off kids to school...


----------



## Zenith63 (29 Feb 2020)

A few areas in Dublin nearly breached EU air pollution limits in 2019, if that happens legislation will force councils etc to come up with a plan to solve it ASAP. So maybe we can hope for a bit more pollution this year to give the government a bit of a kick!

The same EPA report also advises carrying children if near busy roads to avoid pollution. Pretty astounding for the EPA to be recommending something like that, while we twiddle our thumbs and take little to no action.


----------



## KOW (29 Feb 2020)

I am a month back from South Africa with a population of around 56 million. Big 3L and 4L diesel everywhere.Plastic bags etc everywhere etc etc.
A while back was in Beijing pollution unreal. China opening coal mines on a weekly basis.

All for the environment do have children but until  this is tackled at a much higher comprehensive level cycling to work in the Irish weather, changing a few light bulbs is not going to do much.
I know and do my bit recycling etc. But have to say the places I go just makes me feel anything I do is a complete waste of time.
Best in the class might be popular but go to Beijing or the likes of South Africa and ask are we really kidding ourselves.
No I dont know the answers but I do know as it stands were wasting our time. Depressing.


----------



## Zenith63 (29 Feb 2020)

There’s certainly an argument that when it comes to climate change the whole world needs to weigh in to make a big difference. But when it comes to air pollution it’s different; pollutants like NOx, PM, benzene etc are all highly localised (like down to a few meters in some cases!). If all vehicles switched to zero emission in Dublin City centre say, it would make virtually no difference to climate to change, but it would make night and day difference to localised air pollution and hence the people of Dublin.


----------



## Cameo (29 Feb 2020)

KOW said:


> I am a month back from South Africa with a population of around 56 million. Big 3L and 4L diesel everywhere.Plastic bags etc everywhere etc etc.
> A while back was in Beijing pollution unreal. China opening coal mines on a weekly basis.
> 
> All for the environment do have children but until  this is tackled at a much higher comprehensive level cycling to work in the Irish weather, changing a few light bulbs is not going to do much.
> ...


I am not trying to solve global warming etc, it would just be nice to not to have to inhale mouthfuls of diesel fumes everyday


----------



## Cameo (29 Feb 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> A few areas in Dublin nearly breached EU air pollution limits in 2019, if that happens legislation will force councils etc to come up with a plan to solve it ASAP. So maybe we can hope for a bit more pollution this year to give the government a bit of a kick!
> 
> The same EPA report also advises carrying children if near busy roads to avoid pollution. Pretty astounding for the EPA to be recommending something like that, while we twiddle our thumbs and take little to no action.


Like the financial crisis the best outcome can be some external (and less polictised) body telling our politicians what to do


----------



## Cameo (29 Feb 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> There’s certainly an argument that when it comes to climate change the whole world needs to weigh in to make a big difference. But when it comes to air pollution it’s different; pollutants like NOx, PM, benzene etc are all highly localised (like down to a few meters in some cases!). If all vehicles switched to zero emission in Dublin City centre say, it would make virtually no difference to claim to change, but it would make night and day difference to localised air pollution and hence the people of Dublin.


100%

do something we have some control over 

after 20+ years of commuting in dublin, it’s pretty clear to me everyone would be better off if more people cycled

i think irs analogous to smoking years ago

it should be socially unacceptable to drive a diesel oil burner taking up space every day in and out of work if alternatives are possible


----------



## josh8267 (29 Feb 2020)

I was out walking in Swords against the traffic just after 9 am on Thursday I  counted 313 people in 300 cars lots of diesel cars there must be some who could have shared and used public transport for last part of there journey,
What is the ratio of cars/vans to passengers in city center on average,
We have to come up with a way of increasing passenger numbers per car journey in our City's,


----------



## Hooverfish (1 Mar 2020)

Cameo said:


> I am not trying to solve global warming etc, it would just be nice to not to have to inhale mouthfuls of diesel fumes everyday



I regularly travel to part of London that's in the "Ultra Low Emission Zone". It's been transformed for the better. Roads are safer, air is better, lots of parking spaces converted to on-street charging points. I have even seen kids on bikes playing in the streets at the weekends, for the first time in my lifetime. There are now quite a lot of electric vehicles, BUT beware what you wish for. The electric vehicles are very dangerous for the many pedestrians and cyclists because they don't make any noise. You really have to have your wits about you. And don't forget around one-fifth of UK electricity is generated from nuclear, only about one-third is from renewables, though of course, that is better than none.


----------



## Nordkapp (1 Mar 2020)

The quicker the Greens ban diesel cars in Dublin city the better. Must be the only country in Europe that has not got at least one city banning diesel cars. Amazing. I know of one colleague that lives 4 km from work in Dublin city that drives a diesel to work every day.


----------



## mathepac (1 Mar 2020)

The big white elephant in the room that our government won’t tackle in our cities is public transport. Not alone are there no regular joined up services, there is little evidence of joined up thinking. A decnt public transport service could take thousands of cars off city / suburban roads, but there is no will to do it. Why you’d wonder. Maybe because it might mean work for a few of the high-paid help and some tough, unpoular decisions..

Galway City is now almost at a standstill at rush-hours, morning, midday, school quitting times and end of the working day. The answer they have come up with is to build more roads for more traffic on a ring road, which will increase the distances between start-points and destinations, resulting in more fossil fuel being consumed and more pollution. The additional “hard landscaping” will destroy trees and other parts of the natural environment that soak up water efficiently and effectively, will potentially increase localised flooding and add to the burden on the creaking waste-water management system.

Fix the public transport problem first. Increase the number of local train services from places like Athenry into the heart of Galway City, be innovative. The old solutions to traffic and congestion problems are what got us to where we are.  The true sign of insanity is repeating the actions of the past expecting different outcomes now.


----------



## MrEarl (1 Mar 2020)

There's a very simple starting point here...

Increase the road tax on Diesel Cars by 100%, effective immediately (to help reverse the stupid current situation, where road tax is cheaper for diesel cars then petrol). Then increase it by a further 33% per year for the next 3 years, then increase it by a further 100%. All increased tax from this source to be used to invest in more electric charge points. 

Also, stick a levy of 50 cents per litre on Diesel, again with immediate effect. Then increase by a further 50 cents per litre each Budget going forward. All funds raised from this source to be invested in proper cycle lanes (not white lanes painted on the edge of a road). 

Ban the importation of all s departments diesel cars, with immediate effect. 

Ban all Government Departments and State Agencies from buying Diesel Cars and give them 5 years to dispose of any currently held.

All state employees, and contractors to stop receiving mileage payment for journeys made in diesel cars, in 3 years time. 

People trading in Diesel Cars against Electric or Hibred Cars to get a €5k tax break against all personal income, once they first register the new car and provide evidence that their former Diesel car has been traded in. 

There you go, radical, simple and effective ...


----------



## Zenith63 (1 Mar 2020)

MrEarl said:


> Also, stick a levy of 50 cents per litre on Diesel, again with immediate effect. Then increase by a further 50 cents per litre each Budget going forward. All funds raised from this source to be invested in proper cycle lanes (not white lanes painted on the edge of a road).


Like all the other suggestions, this one though would hit many people who cannot afford a replacement car, those who currently need diesels in rural communities and of course commerce. I think your suggestions on road tax and extra incentives for replacing diesels should be more than enough to stop dead the flow of diesels into the market and allow those who can afford to replace old ones do so.


----------



## josh8267 (1 Mar 2020)

MrEarl said:


> There's a very simple starting point here...
> 
> Increase the road tax on Diesel Cars by 100%, effective immediately (to help reverse the stupid current situation, where road tax is cheaper for diesel cars then petrol). Then increase it by a further 33% per year for the next 3 years, then increase it by a further 100%. All increased tax from this source to be used to invest in more electric charge points.
> 
> ...


I suspect Vans and Commercial Motors Vehicles are not in a position to change over in 3 years,
But there is no reason why we cannot have a smokey coal type ban on high polluting  private cars coming into the city within a year, I don't think we should be giving Grants to replace high polluting cars when there is already any amount of less polluting cars to replace them already in the system just like there is plenty of smokeless coal to replace smoky coal,
Just, ban high polluting types  cars within a year from out City's, and be done with it as a first step,


----------



## cremeegg (1 Mar 2020)

mathepac said:


> The big white elephant in the room that our government won’t tackle in our cities is public transport. Not alone are there no regular joined up services, there is little evidence of joined up thinking. A decnt public transport service could take thousands of cars off city / suburban roads, but there is no will to do it. Why you’d wonder. Maybe because it might mean work for a few of the high-paid help and some tough, unpoular decisions..
> 
> Galway City is now almost at a standstill at rush-hours, morning, midday, school quitting times and end of the working day. The answer they have come up with is to build more roads for more traffic on a ring road, which will increase the distances between start-points and destinations, resulting in more fossil fuel being consumed and more pollution. The additional “hard landscaping” will destroy trees and other parts of the natural environment that soak up water efficiently and effectively, will potentially increase localised flooding and add to the burden on the creaking waste-water management system.
> 
> Fix the public transport problem first. Increase the number of local train services from places like Athenry into the heart of Galway City, be innovative. The old solutions to traffic and congestion problems are what got us to where we are.  The true sign of insanity is repeating the actions of the past expecting different outcomes now.



The proposed Galway ring road is probably the best example of all that is wrong with the Green agenda in Ireland today.

The traffic situation is dire and getting worse.

Where is the excellent public transport infrastructure. Buses every 5 minutes at rush hour from a park and ride at at Oranmore, at Claregalway, at Headford, at Moycullen, at Barna. All that would cost less than building a new motorway and could be rolled out in months if not weeks.

There is even a model for it. School buses leave all these places every morning and bring kids to a city centre drop off point. Buses leave that point for every school in the city.

But there is no public will for such an idea. The Greens are blathering about a light rail system, the FF city candidate made supporting the bypass a major part of his campaign. Neither of them were elected.

FF know what they want but can't get it (not for the last 15 years and not for the next 15 I expect), the Greens know what they don't want but have no clue what they do want.


----------



## mathepac (1 Mar 2020)

And I doubt if any of them know what is actually needed! (other than by their pals with construction companies and the like)


----------



## MrEarl (1 Mar 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> Like all the other suggestions, this one though would hit many people who cannot afford a replacement car, those who currently need diesels in rural communities and of course commerce.



There's are ways and means my friend, not everyone has to get a nice new shiney electric BMW for example, there's a second hand hybrid market with lots of cars for sale at different price points.


Also, please note, I only referred to private cars in my previous posts, I didn't mention any form of commercial vehicles on purpose, as there are clearly other considerations there.


----------



## Ceist Beag (2 Mar 2020)

The thing is MrEarl, it is only 12 years ago that the government was highly incentivising diesel cars through cheap road tax. If they take your advice and immediately hammer those people who took their advice would that not seem a bit two faced? If incentives worked before (and the evidence is that a lot of people did move to diesel at that time) then surely incentives are the way to go again - not penalties.


----------



## Zenith63 (2 Mar 2020)

Also worth taking note of the French experience; hiking fuel prices triggered the gilets jaunes protests and I suspect could have a similar effect here.  But the likes of doubling VRT on diesel cars, double the road tax for diesels bought going-forward etc. would have no effect on current owners so should pass easily.


----------



## Peanuts20 (2 Mar 2020)

I'm some one who commutes in and out of Dublin and for various reasons I drive around 1000km weekly. 3 years ago I changed to hybrid from diesel and just bought a new hybrid a few weeks ago. 

The cost has of moving to hybrid from diesel has not been that excessive. In terms of fuel usage it is about half a litre per 100km driven (a lot of my driving is motorway so the real benefits of hybrid don't kick in until I reach the city), so 5 litres a week or about an additional €7 per week. Allowing for the around 8% differential in petrol and diesel prices and the extra fuel usage then the additional fuel cost to me is around €500-€600 per year. However, that gets offset by a reduction in my insurance of 25% since I moved to hybrid and reduced service and road tax. Overall, the additional cost to me is probably only a fiver a week. 

I'd happily move to electric if I had a charging infrastructure at home but as someone who has to park on the street that is not really an option and I spend too long commuting to want to stop at a filling station for 30 mins a day to recharge. Were the Govt to put a charging point outside my house (indeed outside everyone's house, after all, we they put water meters there) then perhaps people would be more inclined to move.


----------



## MrEarl (3 Mar 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> The thing is MrEarl, it is only 12 years ago that the government was highly incentivising diesel cars through cheap road tax. If they take your advice and immediately hammer those people who took their advice would that not seem a bit two faced? If incentives worked before (and the evidence is that a lot of people did move to diesel at that time) then surely incentives are the way to go again - not penalties.



Hi,

I've proposed a combination of "carrot and stick", not just penalties (ref: post #20).

That said, the longer people hold out and don't get rid of their diesel cars, the more they get penalised.

Those who own diesel cars have enjoyed the benefits, but those benefits didn't come with lifetime guarantees etc. 

The reality is that we need diesel car owners acting quickly, not pussy footing around for 5-10 years. As I'm sure you appreciate, we need them to act quickly for two extremely important reasons :

- to help reduce damage to the environment
- to help reduce the risk of the entire Irish nation getting hit with a massive financial penalty, come 2030.

Obviously, I appreciate that we need other significant changes, besides getting people to change their private cars, but this is an important step in the right direction, and a lot less complicated to roll out quickly, IMHO.


----------



## PGF2016 (3 Mar 2020)

MrEarl said:


> The reality is that we need diesel car owners acting quickly, not pussy footing around for 5-10 years. As I'm sure you appreciate, we need them to act quickly for two extremely important reasons :
> 
> - to help reduce damage to the environment
> - to help reduce the risk of the entire Irish nation getting hit with a massive financial penalty, come 2030.



A third important reason is to improve air quality in our towns and cities. 

Those who buy SUV for safety reasons should consider the safety of the fumes polluting our air and the consequences for public health of same.


----------



## Zenith63 (3 Mar 2020)

MrEarl said:


> - to help reduce the risk of the entire Irish nation getting hit with a massive financial penalty, come 2030.


Paradoxically, getting rid of diesels is actually going to increase the likelihood of those fines, because while diesels are bad local polluters (NOx, PM etc) they produce quite a bit less CO2, which is the EU target we're at risk of missing.  So ideally any carrots/sticks would encourage drivers into hybrids/EVs instead of petrols.


----------



## Ceist Beag (3 Mar 2020)

MrEarl said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've proposed a combination of "carrot and stick", not just penalties (ref: post #20).
> 
> ...


Yeah I'm with you on the need to act on this MrEarl but I just don't think the carrot and stick approach is quite enough carrot and is too much stick.
Until people see the government treating this seriously and urgently in terms of encouraging people to move voluntarily I don't think it is right to introduce penalties. Start with the carrot and give it a number of years to encourage people to move voluntarily before thinking about penalties. Right now it is not an attractive enough proposition to most diesel owners. There is still a huge issue over charging which is clearly causing people to hold off. As mentioned by another poster, doing something to encourage home charging is one option. A strong push to increase charging points (and reduce waiting times for charging) is another. Your suggestion of a tax reduction for purchase of electric vehicles only benefits those who buy new. Most people don't buy new.


----------



## iamaspinner (4 Mar 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> Paradoxically, getting rid of diesels is actually going to increase the likelihood of those fines, because while diesels are bad local polluters (NOx, PM etc) they produce quite a bit less CO2, which is the EU target we're at risk of missing.  So ideally any carrots/sticks would encourage drivers into hybrids/EVs instead of petrols.



Car related CO2 emissions seem to have gone up in the last few years in some of the bigger European economies due to increasing number of petrol cars being sold as opposed to diesel. The main culprits are SUVs apparently, whose emissions are on par with the larger luxury cars.









						New car CO2 emissions hit the highest average in Europe since 2014 - JATO
					

In 2019 average CO2 emissions for European markets were at their recorded levels since 2014. Average for the 23 European markets totalled 121.8 g/km.




					www.jato.com


----------



## horse7 (25 Jul 2020)

It would be far better for the environment if motorists with older diesel engines (euro5 or less) and petrol engines were encouraged by government schemes to upgrade to the euro6 diesel engines. They are the most environmentally friendly ones available and have a lower carbon footprint than electric cars.


----------



## Zenith63 (25 Jul 2020)

horse7 said:


> It would be far better for the environment if motorists with older diesel engines (euro5 or less) and petrol engines were encouraged by government schemes to upgrade to the euro6 diesel engines. They are the most environmentally friendly ones available and have a lower carbon footprint than electric cars.


That has been covered many times, possibly even in this thread. It is utterly false.

Furthermore it ignores the fact that petrol and especially diesel cars do more damage than carbon emissions, in-fact these are arguably the least problematic emissions for you and me in our lifetimes. NOx and particulate matter are causing the early deaths of hundreds of thousands of people across Europe every year, electric vehicles reduce the risks of NOx to zero, and particulate matter not far off. Plenty of other emissions from burning fossil fuels then pumping the exhaust into people’s faces, but these are the big ones that are concerning people today.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (26 Jul 2020)

horse7 said:


> It would be far better for the environment if motorists with older diesel engines (euro5 or less) and petrol engines were encouraged by government schemes to upgrade to the euro6 diesel engines. They are the most environmentally friendly ones available and have a lower carbon footprint than electric cars.



Em, no.

Car manufacture produces the equivalent of up to 100,000km of driving emissions.

Our second car is a 2007 petrol that does maybe 4,000km a year. My conscience is clear driving this into the ground rather than buying a new diesel.


----------



## rob oyle (26 Jul 2020)

The constant refrain is that we cannot invest is more fossil fuel infrastructure as we have to leave the discovered but unexploited fields of gas and oil in the ground. This fossil fuel infrastructure counts as much for drills and refineries as it does for distribution centres (petrol stations) and end user appliances (vehicles). As has been said here, we've already made a switch to diesel as our ICE of choice but that trend has continued in full view of the science of the last 5 years and the revelations of manufacturers gaming the emissions systems. We could say that all sales of ICE vehicles was to end imminently but of course there wouldn't be the EV supply to replace it. I'm wondering though - so what? What if people were only able to buy a small supply of EVs and would have to make the most of the existing stock on the roads. Over time the EV picture is expected to improve so the demand for new vehicles will be sated. Can't we make do with our existing stock of vehicles stock until then?


----------



## roker (1 Aug 2020)

Hooverfish said:


> I regularly travel to part of London that's in the "Ultra Low Emission Zone". It's been transformed for the better. Roads are safer, air is better, lots of parking spaces converted to on-street charging points. I have even seen kids on bikes playing in the streets at the weekends, for the first time in my lifetime. There are now quite a lot of electric vehicles, BUT beware what you wish for. The electric vehicles are very dangerous for the many pedestrians and cyclists because they don't make any noise. You really have to have your wits about you. And don't forget around one-fifth of UK electricity is generated from nuclear, only about one-third is from renewables, though of course, that is better than none.


Bikes don't make a sound


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (1 Aug 2020)

EVs still make tyre noise, they are not silent.


----------



## Zenith63 (2 Aug 2020)

I’ve definitely noticed more people not noticing me driving through a carpark compared to when I had an ICE, but I think this is just a short-term phenomenon until people get used to the fact that there are much quieter cars around than before and looking is essential.

Also -


> To aid this problem, a new Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1576 mandates that all new types of electric and hybrid cars to be fitted with a new safety device as from 1 July 2019, the acoustic vehicle alerting system (AVAS).
> The device will automatically generate a sound from the start of the car up to the speed of approximately 20 km/h, and during reversing. The sound-emitting device will be obligatory in all new e-cars as of 1 July 2021.


----------



## PGF2016 (2 Aug 2020)

Thought this was interesting...


			https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1289652674195939328?s=19
		


"recent study by the City of Copenhagen & Ministry of Finance reveals new numbers — driving a car 1km costs society €0.78 (89 cents), & cycling the same distance benefits society €0.68 (78 cents)."

Time to get rid of the diesels in cities unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## MrEarl (4 Aug 2020)

PGF2016 said:


> ... Time to get rid of the diesels in cities unless absolutely necessary.



That won't be easy, given how willing we've been to let people import trends of thousands of them from the UK in recent years. 

The Government should immediately increase the cost of motor tax on diesel engine cars, to make them more expensive than petrol cars to tax. Likewise, diesel fuel costs should be increased significantly (with some sort of tax rebate for commercial users, for the next few years).

Banning the importation of second hand diesel engine cars, while very late in the day, would still be a good idea.


----------



## joer (4 Aug 2020)

Unless the whole world ban diesel cars what difference is this little country of ours going to make by banning them . I have not been convinced about electric cars . There seems to be a lot of pros and cons. I have not seen very many in my area except the odd one at a charging point.


----------



## NiallSparky (4 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> Unless the whole world ban diesel cars what difference is this little country of ours going to make by banning them.



It will improve the air quality of our towns and cities, which is very poor at times. Nox from diesel engines is a massive contributor to this, so it would make a massive difference even with our "little country".


----------



## joer (4 Aug 2020)

I was in Dublin last week and I had no problem with the quality of the air . There is without doubt no problem in any towns that I am in regularly . 
I have yet to be convinced about air problems in Ireland.


----------



## Zenith63 (4 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> I was in Dublin last week and I had no problem with the quality of the air . There is without doubt no problem in any towns that I am in regularly .
> I have yet to be convinced about air problems in Ireland.


Fortunately the test of air quality has not been to sniff the air and see if it catches the back of your throat since the 1800s.

The EPA regularly release reports on the air quality in Ireland, for example this one - https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/quality/Urban_Environmental_Indicators_2019.pdf


> Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is an air pollutant associated with urban areas. It is strongly linked with traffic emissions. High levels affect our lung health. In previous EPA annual air quality reports, we have noted NO2 levels in urban areas approaching the EU limit value. This publication provides new evidence on levels in Dublin. It looks at the main findings from assessments of NO2 levels using techniques that allow us to look at a wider area, beyond the national monitoring stations. It also suggests some next steps. Our findings represent an early warning of potential exceedances of EU limit values in Dublin – long-term exposure to these levels of NO2 is a cause of concern for people’s health and action needs to be taken now to address these findings.
> ...
> If further assessments confirm that the levels of NO2 have been exceeded, local authorities in Dublin and its suburbs under EU legislation will be legally required to prepare air quality action plans to address the causes and provide solutions in the affected areas.



If you're not convinced by the scientists from the EPA here and in hundreds of scientific bodies in other countries, I'm not sure what woudl persuade you...


----------



## joer (4 Aug 2020)

What makes you actually think that the air quality in our towns and cities is bad at times , is it that the powers that be say so or from personal experience ?


----------



## Zenith63 (4 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> What makes you actually think that the air quality in our towns and cities is bad at times , is it that the powers that be say so or from personal experience ?


Scientists are not really 'powers that be', they're the antithesis surely.

The powers that be (governments, fossil fuel lobbying industry) have mostly been trying to have us continue buying petrol/diesel cars either because they don't want to spend money encouraging greener alternatives or because they want to keep making money on fossil fuel revenues.  There is little incentive for the powers that be to be telling us now that fossil fuels are harming us.

As for EVs, again little incentive for the powers that be to push these.  You can stick a solar panel on the roof of your house and never visit a petrol station to pay money to huge fossil fuel companies or excise duties again.


----------



## Leo (4 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> What makes you actually think that the air quality in our towns and cities is bad at times , is it that the powers that be say so or from personal experience ?



You know everyone who dies from carbon monoxide also believes the air is fine too. Humans are completely unable to detect poisonous levels of a wide range of airborne toxins. 

Around 1,200 people a year here die prematurely due to air pollution issues.


----------



## NiallSparky (5 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> I was in Dublin last week and I had no problem with the quality of the air.



I'd rather take my air quality assessments from scientific measurements done by the EPA (and others) than what you think you're picking up by having a sniff of it during your trip last week.

Sorry, but your nose isn't a reliable judge of particulate matter.


----------



## joer (5 Aug 2020)

That is a matter of opinion....


----------



## Leo (5 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> That is a matter of opinion....



Well, when it comes to the educated opinion of experts using verifiable and published evidence versus your opinion, I know which I'd choose. 

Of course if you have any evidence you can point to to back up that opinion, I'd be interested in seeing it.


----------



## mathepac (5 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> What makes you actually think that the air quality in our towns and cities is bad at times


Are you Jackie Healy-Rae?


----------



## joer (5 Aug 2020)

It is just my opinion and like I said time will tell. I must not be the only one or surely there would be a lot more electric cars about, dont you think I do not see any evidence of that , at least down the country.


----------



## Zenith63 (5 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> It is just my opinion and like I said time will tell. I must not be the only one or surely there would be a lot more electric cars about, dont you think I do not see any evidence of that , at least down the country.


Time has already told joer. People have been suffering the effects of air pollution since the industrial revolution. It’s not as bad now as it was then, but the figures clearly show it is far from nil.

As for not seeing EVs meaning people share your view on air pollution, surely you cannot believe that causal link makes any sense!? There are only a limited number of EVs being built, they don’t suit loads of use cases, they’re expensive, years of oil industry lobbying has people worried about various myths etc.


----------



## joer (5 Aug 2020)

No evidence  or not an expert Leo just as I have said, my opinion.


----------



## Baby boomer (5 Aug 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> ...they’re expensive, years of oil industry lobbying has people worried about various myths etc.


It's not just the lobbying.  If anything, there's more evangelical zeal pushing a pro-EV case than there is propaganda against it.
Range anxiety is real and is still a massive problem.  Until there's a doubling of existing range and a huge increase in rapid charging points, EV will remain niche for those who's requirement is regular short journeys and return to base for charging.  That's typically the profile for the second car in a two-car family.  But the EV price is prohibitive for a second car, so back to square one and wait for the technology to improve.


----------



## Zenith63 (6 Aug 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> It's not just the lobbying.  If anything, there's more evangelical zeal pushing a pro-EV case than there is propaganda against it.
> Range anxiety is real and is still a massive problem.  Until there's a doubling of existing range and a huge increase in rapid charging points, EV will remain niche for those who's requirement is regular short journeys and return to base for charging.  That's typically the profile for the second car in a two-car family.  But the EV price is prohibitive for a second car, so back to square one and wait for the technology to improve.


Afraid you're talking to an EV zealot right here, but you might humour me all the same .

I was providing that list of issues with EVs to explain why you don't see many on the road today, most of them have been overcome so will not explain why you don't see more EVs on the road tomorrow.  And this is borne out in the numbers - full EV sales in Ireland in July 2016: 55, full EV sales in Ireland in July 2020: 771, a 1300% increase in 4 short years and we're in the middle of a global pandemic and a recession is on the horizon.  In 2016 there were only 5 different models sold here, this July there were 18.

Range anxiety really should not be a concern for people today; the smallest cheapest EV on the Irish market today (the Renault Zoe) gives you 400km range on a charge.  The likes of the eNiro, a larger family car will do similar range if you need the space.  Driving even 400km in a day already makes you an edge case, needing to do significantly further and being unable to stop for 15-20 min to eat/drink/rest/charge makes you an extreme edge case.  Statistically, needing 800km range in a car without stopping is the niche.

The ESB have started rolling out more chargers recently, as have EasyGo, Ionity etc.  However as somebody who recently moved from an older generation EV to a newer one, you realise that as you can drive Dublin->Cork without stopping (it might have taken 2-3 stops in my last car) the need for fast chargers is actually decreasing significantly as the range of these cars increases.  We need more chargers certainly, but the number will not need to scale linearly with the increase in EV numbers on the road.

The cost can be an issue certainly.  As you say if you're dropping €40k on a second car that gets little use, that is not good economic sense.  However prices are coming down, the big range increases mean an EV doesn't need to be your second car, there's good value in the secondhand market as always, extra taxes on petrol/diesel cars (carbon tax, NOX tax etc) is driving up the price of these cars etc.  Also if your employer gets you the likes of the eNiro as your company car you'll pay 0% BIK, making driving an EV very significantly cheaper.


----------



## Slim (6 Aug 2020)

This is not relevant to the current discussion but I happened on a YouTube video of the Shengdu EV show. The range of vehicles, designs and style is astonishing and I was convinced that the EV will become a major part of the transport industry very soon. The cost of the basic EVs was under €10k. https://youtu.be/rCNjDTiq4Rc


----------



## Leo (6 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> No evidence  or not an expert Leo just as I have said, my opinion.



When all of the science proves your opinion to be wrong, it's perhaps time to adjust your viewpoint.


----------



## MrEarl (6 Aug 2020)

mathepac said:


> Are you Jackie Healy-Rae?



I was thinking Donald Trump myself


----------



## Purple (9 Aug 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> It's not just the lobbying.  If anything, there's more evangelical zeal pushing a pro-EV case than there is propaganda against it.
> Range anxiety is real and is still a massive problem.  Until there's a doubling of existing range and a huge increase in rapid charging points, EV will remain niche for those who's requirement is regular short journeys and return to base for charging.  That's typically the profile for the second car in a two-car family.  But the EV price is prohibitive for a second car, so back to square one and wait for the technology to improve.


What dissuades me from buying an EV is the cost and the fact that about half of the carbon footprint of a car is accumulated before the engine is ever started. It is in the metals and the plastics and the energy used to make it and the energy used to transport all the parts to the manufacturer etc.
I drive under 150 km a week and use my bike to commute to work through the city centre so there is no environmental case to be made for me getting rid of my 2 litre diesel saloon car. When I need to replace it I'll probably buy an electric car.

Forcing people to sell their old cars and buy new electric ones makes no environmental sense. Making sure that the environmentally sound choice is the cheapest one when they choose to get rid of their old car does make environmental sense.


----------



## Purple (9 Aug 2020)

joer said:


> What makes you actually think that the air quality in our towns and cities is bad at times , is it that the powers that be say so or from personal experience ?


I read that the rates of premature births is down by over 90% since the lockdown. That may well be the result of a number of factors but the reduction in air pollution during the lockdown is certainly one of those factors.


----------



## PGF2016 (9 Aug 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> EV will remain niche for those who's requirement is regular short journeys and return to base for charging.  That's typically the profile for the second car in a two-car family.


I think that's the profile of the primary car for two car families. Statistically most trips are very short. The EV should be seen as the primary car and the Ice used for longer trips the secondary.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> I read that the rates of premature births is down by over 90% since the lockdown. That may well be the result of a number of factors but the reduction in air pollution during the lockdown is certainly one of those factors.



Were Irish women exposed to a material amounts of air pollution before? Some undoubtedly were, but hardly the majority.

Have you ever been to a Chinese city? Or even the north of Italy in November?


----------



## Zenith63 (9 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> I drive under 150 km a week and use my bike to commute to work through the city centre so there is no environmental case to be made for me getting rid of my 2 litre diesel saloon car.


The case from a global warming point of view is probably not strong. However your diesel emits much more than just carbon dioxide. While we need to do something about global warming and EVs help, any action we take will have minimal impact in our lifetimes. Getting diesel cars off the road would have a hugely positive impact on people living, working and growing up near roads immediately.

The environmental reason for you getting rid of your diesel is strong and well documented, the global warming rationale less so.


----------



## Baby boomer (9 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> I read that the rates of premature births is down by over 90% since the lockdown. That may well be the result of a number of factors but the reduction in air pollution during the lockdown is certainly one of those factors.


Correlation isn't causation!  To prove that reduction in air pollution is a factor, you would need to do a multivariate analysis and measure and compare the reductions in premature births in areas with high and low levels of air pollution.  It would also be worth looking at current statistics for premature births and seeing if the pre-lockdown rate correlated with levels of air pollution.  Even then, air pollution correlates positively with living in cities, and - one would intuitively think - also with living in poverty stricken environs.  Both of those factors contribute to stress and very likely maternal health and rates of premature births.


----------



## Baby boomer (9 Aug 2020)

PGF2016 said:


> I think that's the profile of the primary car for two car families. Statistically most trips are very short. The EV should be seen as the primary car and the Ice used for longer trips the secondary.


Yeah, fair point in a lot of cases.  I was thinking of my own situation where the ICE served as the all-purpose workhorse for country runs, towing, load carrying and needed to be reliable.


----------



## Purple (10 Aug 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Correlation isn't causation!  To prove that reduction in air pollution is a factor, you would need to do a multivariate analysis and measure and compare the reductions in premature births in areas with high and low levels of air pollution.  It would also be worth looking at current statistics for premature births and seeing if the pre-lockdown rate correlated with levels of air pollution.  Even then, air pollution correlates positively with living in cities, and - one would intuitively think - also with living in poverty stricken environs.  Both of those factors contribute to stress and very likely maternal health and rates of premature births.


Yes, hence the "may well be the result of a number of factors" at the start of my post.
There is an established link between air pollution and both birth defects and issues around pregnancy and fertility.


----------



## Zenith63 (10 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> What dissuades me from buying an EV is the cost and the fact that about half of the carbon footprint of a car is accumulated before the engine is ever started. It is in the metals and the plastics and the energy used to make it and the energy used to transport all the parts to the manufacturer etc.
> I drive under 150 km a week and use my bike to commute to work through the city centre so there is no environmental case to be made for me getting rid of my 2 litre diesel saloon car. When I need to replace it I'll probably buy an electric car.
> 
> Forcing people to sell their old cars and buy new electric ones makes no environmental sense. Making sure that the environmentally sound choice is the cheapest one when they choose to get rid of their old car does make environmental sense.


Thought you might like this Examiner article on this subject this morning (https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/economy/arid-40029842.html). The Irish Car Carbon Reduction Alliance  conveniently overlooking the fact that CO2 is released in the building of a new car as well as the running of!



> the Irish Car Carbon Reduction Alliance (ICCRA)...which represents the majority of car dealers in Ireland...wants an independent expert review of the current motor taxation situation saying it wants to bring realistic ideas to the table that could aid the Government’s ambition to reduce the carbon footprint of the cars on Irish roads.
> 
> “The current system does not make sense for the economy or the environment. VRT is a dysfunctional tax," Denis Murphy, spokesperson for the ICCRA said.
> 
> "New cars in 2021 with internal combustion engines (ICE) will emit 28% less CO2 than the average car currently on Irish roads, so for every car we replace with a newer cleaner car, we can achieve significant reductions. Motorists should be encouraged to purchase newer cars — it would be a win-win for everyone."


----------



## Purple (10 Aug 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> Thought you might like this Examiner article on this subject this morning (https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/economy/arid-40029842.html). The Irish Car Carbon Reduction Alliance  conveniently overlooking the fact that CO2 is released in the building of a new car as well as the running of!


Yep, up to 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide is emitted by the making of the average electric car battery. The average petrol car produces 45 tons of CO2 in its average 160,000 mile livecycle. The electricity used to charge the battery is mainly produced by burning fossil fuels, including turf, so the CO2 per Km travelled isn't going to be massively different.
The carbon emissions caused by the manufacture of a second hand car have already occurred. When you buy a new car you are causing new emissions to occur. Therefore the best thing you can do is keep your old car and use it as little as possible. When it dies buy a different second hand car.
Of course if you really want to reduce your carbon footprint just eat less red meat as the farming of grazing animals is by far the biggest contribution to climate change. The second thing you should do is buy fewer clothes. After that start worrying about what car you drive.


----------



## Drakon (10 Aug 2020)

I bought a 3 litre diesel in 2013. The intention at the time, and it sold holds, is to keep it for at least 20 years, hopefully more. Generally speaking, every time you spend money you’re contributing to climate change. I don’t see how buying an EV before my current vehicle dies can help the planet.


----------



## joer (10 Aug 2020)

I bought a second hand 1.4 Opel diesel in 2013 also . There is only 93,000 km on clock so I wont be causing any problems to the planet either. Hopefully I will have it for another few years .


----------



## Zenith63 (10 Aug 2020)

Drakon said:


> I bought a 3 litre diesel in 2013. The intention at the time, and it sold holds, is to keep it for at least 20 years, hopefully more. Generally speaking, every time you spend money you’re contributing to climate change. I don’t see how buying an EV before my current vehicle dies can help the planet.


Here's how -
1. If you're doing any sort of mileage in that diesel, then there will be a cross-over point where replacing it with an EV would release less lifetime CO2 emissions.  Keep in-mind that as that car ages its emissions will increase as the engine wears, runs less efficiently and burns more oil.  At the same time the Irish electricity grid will be getting cleaner and cleaner, Eirgrid expecting 70% renewable by 2030 with all coal/peat gone.

2. It's a mistake to think that CO2 emissions from that car are the only thing harming the planet.  NOx, SOx, PM etc. are all doing damage to humans, animals, waters etc.  Some of these emissions are highly localised, so there's a significant difference between an EV where a certain amount is emitted during production away from where people live/work and a petrol/disel which emits them into the faces of passers-by and in people's windows where they work/live.


----------



## Purple (10 Aug 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> Here's how -
> 1. If you're doing any sort of mileage in that diesel, then there will be a cross-over point where replacing it with an EV would release less lifetime CO2 emissions.  Keep in-mind that as that car ages its emissions will increase as the engine wears, runs less efficiently and burns more oil.  At the same time the Irish electricity grid will be getting cleaner and cleaner, Eirgrid expecting 70% renewable by 2030 with all coal/peat gone.
> 
> 2. It's a mistake to think that CO2 emissions from that car are the only thing harming the planet.  NOx, SOx, PM etc. are all doing damage to humans, animals, waters etc.  Some of these emissions are highly localised, so there's a significant difference between an EV where a certain amount is emitted during production away from where people live/work and a petrol/disel which emits them into the faces of passers-by and if people's windows where they work/live.


The children digging the cobalt for the battery out of the ground in the Congo would probably question the notion that the damage done during production takes place far away from humans. The related the environmental destruction caused by the mining is also massive. Like so much of the environmental damage and pollution we cause we are just outsourcing it to poorer countries. We do it with food production, waste management and manufacturing. Now we are doing it with transport.


----------



## Leo (10 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> The children digging the cobalt for the battery out of the ground in the Congo would probably question the notion that the damage done during production takes place far away from humans.



The EV industry is only starting to acknowledge this problem. There are a few battery technology developments under way, including LFP, that reduce or eliminate the need for rare earth metals with lower cost and improved energy density. It'll be a few years before they become mainstream, that's when EVs will become a much more compelling prospect.


----------



## Zenith63 (10 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> The children digging the cobalt for the battery out of the ground in the Congo would probably question the notion that the damage done during production takes place far away from humans. The related the environmental destruction caused by the mining is also massive. Like so much of the environmental damage and pollution we cause we are just outsourcing it to poorer countries. We do it with food production, waste management and manufacturing. Now we are doing it with transport.


That's much too simplistic a view of the world in my view Purple, you're ignoring the order of magnitude entirely.

It is horrific that children are mining cobalt in DRC, but in everything humans do there is risk to human life.  10+ people die on Irish building sites every year, but we continue building because new houses are safer, consumerism, whatever you want to put it down to.  It's believed that 500,000 people are dying prematurely in Europe every year as a result of air pollution (European Environment Agency Report).  If you're telling me this number of people are dying mining cobalt and other materials each year then yeah lets have a discussion.  But saying a guy died in a Tesla factory assembling a battery pack so we need to stop making EVs then a conversation on perspective might be more apt.

Or how about a discussion on the number of people dying and that have died to extract and transport oil to run petrol/diesel cars?  Nearly 200 people a year die in the US working the oilfields there, who knows what those figures look like if you include Africa/ME countries where safety standards may not be similar.  Now factor in all the indirect deaths caused by the various in the Middle East, the damage being done by the likes of Saudi funding terrorism around the world on the back of oil money.

The cobalt argument is frankly ludicrous and callous in the face of the deaths caused by the demand for oil over the years.


If you still somehow think the balance sheet of horror tilts more towards cobalt mining than the oil industry, this might give you hope


> TOKYO, Reuters JULY 30, 2020
> Panasonic Corp plans to ... commercialize a cobalt-free version “in two to three years” the head of its U.S. EV battery business said.


Article link


----------



## Purple (10 Aug 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> That's much too simplistic a view of the world in my view Purple, you're ignoring the order of magnitude entirely.
> 
> It is horrific that children are mining cobalt in DRC, but in everything humans do there is risk to human life.  10+ people die on Irish building sites every year, but we continue building because new houses are safer, consumerism, whatever you want to put it down to.  It's believed that 500,000 people are dying prematurely in Europe every year as a result of air pollution (European Environment Agency Report).  If you're telling me this number of people are dying mining cobalt and other materials each year then yeah lets have a discussion.  But saying a guy died in a Tesla factory assembling a battery pack so we need to stop making EVs then a conversation on perspective might be more apt.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what point you think I was making. For clarity it wasn't some sort of relative comparison to oil but rather pointing out that the rainbows and flowers view of EV's is ridiculous. The real damage EV's do it they make owners think they are doing their bit for climate change when private vehicle ownership is a small part of the overall problem. Simply not eating meat one day a week will do far more than switching to an EV. 

The issue of air pollution is indeed a factor but globally it kills over 3 million a year. This is due to burning coal and wood to cook and heat, the reliance on diesel generators where there is no electricity infrastructure, industry and transport. 
As long as we are only worried about ourselves then EV's are a great idea but if we are interested in the whole planet then the discussion is more complex.


----------



## Zenith63 (10 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> I'm not sure what point you think I was making. For clarity it wasn't some sort of relative comparison to oil but rather pointing out that the rainbows and flowers view of EV's is ridiculous. The real damage EV's do it they make owners think they are doing their bit for climate change when private vehicle ownership is a small part of the overall problem. Simply not eating meat one day a week will do far more than switching to an EV.
> 
> The issue of air pollution is indeed a factor but globally it kills over 3 million a year. This is due to burning coal and wood to cook and heat, the reliance on diesel generators where there is no electricity infrastructure, industry and transport.
> As long as we are only worried about ourselves then EV's are a great idea but if we are interested in the whole planet then the discussion is more complex.


Fair enough.  Sorry I took your point as the fairly common narrative "EVs are bad because of cobalt, nothing else matters, end of debate" .  100% agree it is all much more nuanced than that.

What is not nuanced for me is that if you happen to be buying a new car today, you will be doing the world and your neighbours less harm by buying an EV instead of a petrol/diesel car.  Discussions about cobalt, cost, lithium mining, public transport, cycling etc. are all important and need to go on in parallel, but nobody who can afford it should be talked out of buying an EV on the basis of the cobalt argument is my point I guess.


----------



## roker (11 Aug 2020)

NiallSparky said:


> It will improve the air quality of our towns and cities, which is very poor at times. Nox from diesel engines is a massive contributor to this, so it would make a massive difference even with our "little country".


The railways, HGV and industrial equipment like diggers uses far more


----------



## Zenith63 (11 Aug 2020)

roker said:


> The railways, HGV and industrial equipment like diggers uses far more


Cars account for over 2/3 Ireland’s CO2 emissions from road transport, the rest being goods vehicles. Railways are barely a rounding error, which makes sense as we have a tiny rail network. http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/ghg/nir2019/Ireland NIR 2019_Final.pdf

But regardless of that, it’s cars that are used most on city streets where pollution is worst, and we have a ready means of significantly improving car emissions today (electrifying them) whereas electrifying the likes HGVs and intercity trains is not as easily done. So why not start with cars...


----------



## yoyo21 (12 Aug 2020)

MrEarl said:


> I would question the environmental value of punitive measures against already manufactured diesel vehicles.
> 
> Yes in hindsight it may have wrong to promote diesels , and so possibly remove incentives for ones to be manufactured .
> Considering the CO2 emissions to manufacturer, ship , sell, service etc a vehicle in the first place , would it be greener to scrap or devalue otherwise functional vehicles


----------



## Purple (12 Aug 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> Cars account for over 2/3 Ireland’s CO2 emissions from road transport, the rest being goods vehicles. Railways are barely a rounding error, which makes sense as we have a tiny rail network. http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/ghg/nir2019/Ireland NIR 2019_Final.pdf
> 
> But regardless of that, it’s cars that are used most on city streets where pollution is worst, and we have a ready means of significantly improving car emissions today (electrifying them) whereas electrifying the likes HGVs and intercity trains is not as easily done. So why not start with cars...


In order to electrify all our cars we'd need to about double our electricity generation capacity. 
This is where I have a problem with the whole EV thing; 

It is relatively unimportant in terms of global climate change so concentrating on it instead of all the much bigger contributing factors does more harm than good.
It is a fantasy to think that we can electrify our internal combustion engine fleet without a massive investment (tens of billions over decades) in electricity generation and distribution
Good public transport and a pollution charge are a better way of forcing people to keep their cars out of towns and cities
Good town planning and a higher density of housing is a better way of making public transport economically sustainable
The best way of reducing pollution from cars is to design our higher density areas so that we don't need cars all the time
The existing battery technology isn't good enough, isn't clean enough and doesn't last long enough and the minerals to make enough of them to replace the existing global fleet are controlled by China which is a massive geo-political problem.


----------



## Zenith63 (12 Aug 2020)

I wouldn’t disagree with much of that to be honest, however if you ask me which is more likely to happen: rapid densification of our housing and unprecedented investment in public transport, or some tax tweaks to incentivise driving cleaner cars, I’ll take the latter every day of the week. I just want cleaner air as quickly as possible, I don’t want to pin my hopes on massive government spending that is unlikely to materialise.

The cost of buying EVs will be mostly borne by citizens, the charging network will mostly be private after initial seeding (same as petrol stations) and upgrading generation/distribution will be somewhat compensated for by electricity companies seeing their revenues tripled or more. Public transport is all cost to government, not too hopeful on that front.


----------



## roker (19 Aug 2020)

I remember at a place that I worked had about 6 electric forklift which were hooked up to chargers every evening. Someone in their infinite wisdom purchased larger chargers for each forklift to charge quicker,  the result was that the existing supply cable wasn't big enough for all the charges at once requiring new cabling and auxiliary equipment.
This is a simplification of what will happen with electric cars. All those fuel tankers delivering fuel, the equivalent energy will have to come down a cable


----------



## Zenith63 (19 Aug 2020)

roker said:


> I remember at a place that I worked had about 6 electric forklift which were hooked up to chargers every evening. Someone in their infinite wisdom purchased larger chargers for each forklift to charge quicker,  the result was that the existing supply cable wasn't big enough for all the charges at once requiring new cabling and auxiliary equipment.
> This is a simplification of what will happen with electric cars. All those fuel tankers delivering fuel, the equivalent energy will have to come down a cable


Yep it's a massive opportunity for EirGrid and the electricity providers, they'll see their business double or triple in the coming couple of decades as all transport and domestic-heating energy usage transitions from direct fossil fuel consumption to consumption via their electricity infrastructure.  And all at a very predictable pace to allow them build out the network as demand increases.

Some really interesting documents from the various providers on what they are doing to model and plan for the transition -
(EirGrid) Tomorrow’s Energy Scenarios 2019 Ireland Planning our Energy Future - link
(ESB Networks) PREPARING FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON THE IRISH DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - [broken link removed]


----------



## roker (20 Aug 2020)

Let us hope the infrastructure is ahead of the demand otherwise we will be queueing up to charge our cars


----------



## roker (2 Sep 2020)

Cameo said:


> I am not trying to solve global warming etc, it would just be nice to not to have to inhale mouthfuls of diesel fumes everyday


try moving to rural Ireland


----------



## Drakon (22 Sep 2020)

Interesting piece on The Pat Kenny Show about DieselGate and diesel cars. 
I’d assumed the dodgy emission data was out by a few percentage points. Alas, a car such as a VW Passat was out by 40 times the permissible level!

It was the EU that pushed the take-up of diesel cars rather than the Irish government.
But, as ever, we complied. Sales of diesel cars shot up from 30% to 70% around 2008-2009.


----------

