Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) are gaining in popularity, but at what cost to the environment?
Figures from 2018 show that SUVs accounted for just over a fifth (21.2 per cent) of new car sales, an increase of 7.7 per compared to 2015. Their increasing popularity comes at a cost to the environment, with the assertion that they emit 25 per cent more CO2 than a medium-size car.
The UK Energy Research Centre has highlighted the role of increasing popularity of sports utility vehicles (SUVs) in preventing overall carbon dioxide emissions from transport from declining, and suggests that sales should be reduced.
But exactly how could the increase in carbon dioxide emissions linked to the popularity of SUVs be countered?
We put this to Engineer readers and 46 per cent agreed that the solution lies in the development of more zero-emissions SUVs. Just under a quarter (23 per cent) of the 441 respondents thought improved engine efficiency would work, followed by 12 per cent endorsing a limit to SUV sales. Of the remainder, nine per cent opted for an increase in fuel duty, and 10 per cent chose ‘none of the above’.
_____________________________________________________________________
Further reading
- Audi previews all-electric SUV
- Bentley’s first SUV to create 1,000 UK jobs
- Car makers to develop hybrid system for pick-ups and SUVs
_____________________________________________________________________
In the numerous comments that followed, Brian Spence said: “Higher taxation at the point of purchase is absolutely the answer. It’s would have to be very high and not an option to bundle it in with the monthly payments as 90% of people who are buying new privately are using some type of finance product. If this was exclusively applied to 2wd and luxury vanity vehicles rather than utilitarian 4×4 would weed out and protect users with an actual requirement for a large vehicle.”
“I must admit I am not a fan of SUVs,” added Another Steve. “However, there is no valid reason to penalise SUVs just because of an image problem. All vehicle taxation should be based across the board on a number of factors including mpg, emissions and environmental elements.”
Finally, JohnHartley suggested a closer look at the definition of SUVs when he said: “Not all SUVs are the same. You should not say a 1.3 litre, sub 4-metre long, mini SUV is the same as some 6 litre, 5 metre+ mega SUV. A very clean Euro 6+, mini SUV may well be greener, cradle to grave, than some electric, mega SUV, with all sorts of battery issues from production to disposal.”
What do you think? Add your voice to the debate below, but remember to familiarise yourself our guidelines for the content of comments before submitting.
It is interesting that the rise of the SUV coincides with all the traffic humps being installed, plus all the extra potholes in neglected roads. Fix the potholes & remove the excessive obstacles in the road & SUVs become less attractive.
Not all SUVs are the same. You should not say a 1.3 litre, sub 4 metre long, mini SUV is the same as some 6 litre, 5 metre+ mega SUV.
A very clean Euro 6+, mini SUV may well be greener, cradle to grave, than some electric, mega SUV, with all sorts of battery issues from production to disposal.
After a decade of trickle up economics, any rise in fuel duty, which will hit low paid shift workers the hardest, is not a good or fair idea.
I agree that SUV’s are probably a part of the problem (I should add that I hate the ugly things anyway but that’s by the way). It’s difficult to quantify but if you compare an SUV with an equivalent size normal car, I would say they use a least 15% more fuel – comparing say an Audi A3 with a Q3. There is no advantage in having an SUV as far as I see as far as luggage and passenger capacity. It’s just a fad which will hopefully pass. Tax is the only answer.
1. SUVs are more suited to the ever more challenging road surfaces. Filling in potholes might solve the problem, but would we want to ‘encourage’ road use overall?
2. Perhaps increasing bus lanes and bus only routes (and opening them to cycles, motorcycles, electric or ‘small’ cars) would tempt people away from SUVs.
3. Impose a ‘Congestion Charge’-type of tariff on large vehicles (including SUVs) entering or using roads in the towns and cities. This might stop the ‘kensington tractors’ being used for the school run. If this was run locally, arrangements could be made for local buses, emergency vehicles and essential deliveries (perhaps nudging busnisses to pool vehicle usage?).
Sorry Raymond, but I have to diagree. Taxation to reduce usage is not the way to go, as it will hit ordinary people not only where it hurts but isn’t it using a sledge hammer to crack a nut? If electric SUV’s had the range of internal combustion engines and are the same purchase price with numerous fast charging points at all filling stations then the use of electric vehicles would presumably overtake petrol/diesel powered vehicles?
In my view, the fad for SUVs is largely a status thing – I live near several public schools and it’s noticeable that pretty much every car doing the school run is a SUV. They also park on the pavements and grass verges of the narrow road to my house sometimes blocking it BTW. The argument about traffic humps and potholes is specious – my Astra copes well with these. Hopefully growing awareness of the impact of climate change will end this.
What isn’t helping is the demonisation of Diesel and the skewing of hybrid emission outputs.
Hybrids are reported as having very low emissions and very high mpg values which are only valid for short journeys. If I drive a car for 200 miles then a diesel at 60mpg actually has a much lower CO2 output than a hybrid which only achieves 35mpg on a long run.
An EU6 diesel has lower particulate emissions than an EU5 Petrol car which is why petrol cars are now having to be fitted with particulate filters. If we continued to drive (EU6) dieses then the CO2 emissions would be lower than it now is.
I think John Hartley has a point. Why are SUV’s more popular than ever? Consider that most SUV’s are really only 2WD “cross-overs” and not real 4×4 SUV’s. It’s not the “go anywhere” capabilty of a true SUV that’s the attraction. The increased ride height is partly what its all about – better over our shockingly bad roads and also gives a feeling of security with improved visibilty. In fact, the SUV body style allows more space for batteries, so I expect to see more rather than less SUV’s in the same vein as Jaguar’s i-Pace and now Ford’s Mustang Mach-E along with Tesla huge Model X. Tax isn’t going to be popular (it never is) but actually will not solve the problem whilst imposing extra costs on those who really do need an SUV – farmer’s for example. Perhaps at this point I should declare that I have a Jeep and a V8 Mustang… both of which cost the same to tax, insure and use about the same amount of fuel. In fact, on a long journey, the V8 Mustang uses less petrol than the diesel Jeep.
I remember, back in the 1960s (?) that attempts were made by government to limit ‘company’ cars to 2-litre or less engine capacity. This set motor manufacturers in action which resulted in some superb 1.9-litre motors such as the Rover 2000, Triumph 2000 and Cortina 1600E and 2000. So, by all means try to destroy the market for large SUVs by means of taxation, but be prepared for an influx of ‘alternative’ motor designs that dodge around the legislation.
I’m inclined to agree with Raymond Westcott, that tax is the answer to reduce the numbers of SUVs on the roads, which will inevitably serve to cut down emissions. I would add the caveat though that this should be dependant on use. For example, if the owner can show that the vehicle is essential for their business (farming, construction work, vehicle towing etc.) then an SUV may be the optimum answer. Then the increased tax would only be levied on those choosing to use these sort of vehicles for lifestyle purposes.
Overall, it’s shame that small cars are not more popular beyond the needs of the impecunious. They are far more relevant on today’s crowded roads, even before their better environmental credentials are considered (not just fuel-use either: emissions of the production process of a small car vs. a large car, tyres, oil, brake pad wear etc.)
I would recommend anyone to rent a modern city car for a week or two, if you haven’t driven one for a few years. I think you’ll find, as I did, that the usefulness of this class of car has improved in leaps and bounds to such an extent that your bigger car probably won’t get much use during the rental period.
As engineers, I suggest that we can set an example in this area. After all, in our work, we are occupied with ‘getting the most from the least’ every day. Small and right-sized cars are an embodiment of this principle.
Disclaimer: I have an SUV. I really don’t see the problem with them. Some are more economical than others like any type of car. Mine has better fuel economy that a 4 door Rolls Royce saloon and the Type R Honda Civic hatchback just to name two, so where is the call for those to be banned?
Sadly the politics of envy once again, those that want to ban them do not have one themselves. We in the UK are already moderately green. I travel to China and India frequently and it will take 50 years before they get to the same level as us today! 19 million new cars a year and 11 million motorbikes and that is just China!
UK get in the real world, we can do nothing from here.
ALL SUVs are a hazard in car parks, I can’t see through or around them. Drastically increase the road tax for SUVs, and increase the subsidies on highbred or electrical vehicles.
No obvious ‘fixes’: economics 101. A new Nissan Leaf will lose 76.8% of its value over 3 years / 36,000; compare this to 48% for the best selling SUV Ford Kuga. Ration, limit, tax, ban or otherwise inhibit sales of new SUVs and you bolster the second hand price making them more attractive – and owners will hang onto the older, more polluting models for longer …
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/94305/fastest-depreciating-cars-top-10-worst-motoring-money-pits
https://www.themoneycalculator.com/vehicle-finance/calculators/car-depreciation-by-make-and-model/FORD/KUGA/
Very well put Mr Barker
Totally agree…..diesel is definitely being demonized …..Electrical infrastructure in this country is far away from being able to support ev,s… political people need to get their facts from engineers who know
would the SUV haters like to comment on this?
What isn’t helping is the demonisation of Diesel and the skewing of hybrid emission outputs.
Hybrids are reported as having very low emissions and very high mpg values which are only valid for short journeys. If I drive a car for 200 miles then a diesel at 60mpg actually has a much lower CO2 output than a hybrid which only achieves 35mpg on a long run.
An EU6 diesel has lower particulate emissions than an EU5 Petrol car which is why petrol cars are now having to be fitted with particulate filters. If we continued to drive (EU6) dieses then the CO2 emissions would be lower than it now is.
It’s not the type of vehicle that matters it is its CO2. My Nissan pickup does over 45 to the gallon and is EU6. How is that bad? Yet other brands only do 30 to the gallon with higher omissions. Don’t punish all, just punish the bad ones and the suppliers will have to do something about it. Thinking about it isnt car tax based on emissions? so we want another tax on emissions as well?
The Diesel Jeep doesn’t use ANY petrol!
Firstly we have to understand what we are talking about, as ‘SUV’ seems to be a term used for a huge variety of vehicles, from a Front Wheel Drive only ‘tall’ hatch, all the way through to large engined 4 x 4 fuel guzzlers.
Personally I have a 2litre petrol RAV4, which I find as economical as the 2ltr estate it replaced. It is however much easier for me to get in and out of, as the seat height is much higher and doesn’t requireme to fold myself up to get in it. Maybe the rest of us ‘baby boomers’ are finding taller cars easier to use too?
The fact that I live in a rural area and find the all wheel drive very handy when out of town is a bonus, and handy for pulling other vehicles up icy slopes.
I also have an SUV a Subaru Forester diesel, for me to enjoy my hobbies I have to travel some distance off road, having had 2 wheel drive cars I know they get stuck. However, whether there is a need for engines of greater than 2.5 – 3L probably not, these I feel, are status symbol.
If electric vehicles that meet my requirements were the same price as the ICE version then I would most likely buy it.
I must admit I am not a fan of SUVs. However, there is no valid reason to penalise SUVs just because of an image problem. All vehicle taxation should be based across the board on a number of factors including mpg, emissions and environmental elements.
And, maybe, contentiously, there should be an extra tax or limitation on people using their Pensions 25% tax free lump sum on buying unfeasibly large vehicles ? How many times do you see a five foot pensioner who can hardly walk stumble out of an SUV at the supermarket ?
Difficult question. Undoubtedly they are a life-style vehicle for many, but by no means all. They are generally safer, more robust and a more useful vehicle. Small cars often have limited practicality, unless only ever used for local/inner city use. Electrifying them would not work for those that need to use them, so some sort of justificable usage criteria could discourage their unnecessary use.
With ref. to the comments by Chris V. I also have an SUV and it’s a diesel, 1.6 ltr. I get on average 55 mpg without trying. The idea of imposing higher taxes on SUV’s won’t do any good but to alienate the SUV owners. The only reason would be “Hey, Look, we are doing something to reduce global warming” , and then forget all about it. Look what happened with the firearms amendment act, take legally held firearms from the law abiding public, look we’ve done something by making the streets safer but in fact, the villans still have firearms but the public don’t.
It’s like smoking cigarettes – SUV drivers will make any excuse that seems to make their addiction sound reasonable. The truth is that all cars allow the features they like about SUVs but just to a slightly less extent! If they had to journey off-road then one could understand their need.
On the other hand I’m quite happy for them to pay so much more in taxes – unfortunately it won’t take long before they wake up to the advantages of efficient/low cost electric cars.
Well Mr Chapman….that seems the most sensible summing up. Say what you will, it is the ego boost of owning an SUV which is at the root of it all. I refuse to believe that–apart from the one-upmanship of the school run etc, the talk of ease of access and seeing over lesser vehicles from the lofty heights of ego-boost, there seems no sensible reason for the majority of them. We need a committee to question all potential owners as to justify their (lack of?)usage.
No-one heard/read of the awful forecast re global land and sea warming?? It’s not just coming—it’s HAPPENING!!
SUV owners can drive ‘guilt free’ if they register with Shell Go+
https://www.shell.co.uk/motorist/shell-select-promotions.html/shop-offers/offer/drive-carbon-neutral-with-shell-go.html
And it doesn’t cost anything extra, all you have to do is scan your Shell Go+ card when you purchase your fuel and Shell will offset all of the emissions from by the production and use of the fuel.
Eighteen months ago I wanted to buy a new car; my preferred choice was an estate car. Many manufacturers had an extremely limited choice, whereas they all had an extensive range of SUVs. One wonders whether it was due to a change of fashion or market demand. A previous example was diesel which became the ‘in’ thing and choice of petrol engines became limited. We all know what happened with that and the embarassment of some companies.
My input would be that any tax levied on a specific vehicle doesn’t do what is expected. The companies just find ways around this and the customer always pays in the end. I would suggest getting rid of road tax as it currently is. Imo it’s not working and the roads are just getting worse as money is funneled elsewhere. If they instead put an increase on fuel say 1p per litre as tax, then you only pay for how much fuel you use by driving your vehicle. The more you drive and use the roads the more tax you pay at the pump. People would then start looking for more fuel economy themselves rather than feeling pressured.
Higher taxation at the point of purchase is absolutely the answer. It’s would have to be very high and not an option to bundle it in with the monthly payments as 90% of people who are buying new privately are using some type of finance product. If this was exclusively applied to 2wd and luxury vanity vehicles rather than utilitarian 4×4 would weed out and protect users with an actual requirement for a large vehicle.
Richard H (Ironic I suspect), the fallacy of offsetting irresponsible behavior really needs to be squashed. We need people to reduce their bad behaviors, not plant a tree and then carry on regardless. – if you pollute, you pollute, that’s the end of it – just stop it !
Any offset offer from a fossil fuel company needs to be treated with the disdain it deserves.
Is it not amazing that despite the relentless media onslaught about emissions and climate change, the people continue to treat these doom-warnings with total indifference. The government’s attempts to demonise diesel seem to be falling on deaf ears. As Bob Dylan famously sang “You can fool all of the people part of the time ……”.
As Robert Gardner said above, the Indians and Chinese will carry on buying these even if we ban them anyway: of course they will then start to make them.
I used to live in an urban conurbation. Most vehicles around were cars with a smattering of lightweight, modern and efficient ‘SUV’s (the SUVs being popular for their ease of access, ease of access to boot space and improved visibility) Now I live in a rural area. A much larger percentage of vehicles are SUV and full blown 4×4. Here, this is out of need rather than desire. I see great issues with a blanket tariff which, while maybe having some affect on reducing the urban population of SUVs, will hammer the folk that really need them.
And anyway, hydrogen is the way to go, either as fuel cell or burnt in a conventional ICE. Battery electric vehicles for all is a smoke screen. Does anyone know if it’s possible to convert an existing petrol or diesel to run on H? How Eco friendly is that! I suspect much, much more than replacing the current vehicle stock with electric ones (but won’t make anywhere near as much profit for the manufacturing and mining moguls)
As engineers shouldn’t the debate be about the question of whether global warming is caused by CO2 and other emissions; pertubations in earth’s orbit; solar emissions; continued emergence from last ice age etc etc. And if we believe it is vehicle emissions, rather than just attacking SUVs we need to look at the total CO2 emission including construction , running ,right through to and including reprocessing of not only the vehicle, but also construction and reprocessing of the renewable energy alternatives. and energy sources, storage and distribution. This needs to also consider the comparative life of the vehicles.
The question for debate should be rejected as too simplistic for professionals. A much more reasoned scientific approach is required.
“How could the increase in carbon dioxide emissions linked to the popularity of large vehicles such as SUVs be countered?”
Fuel rationing. Each DVLA registered keeper is issued with a chip and PIN card ‘ration book’ and an annual, non-transferrable fuel allocation with any unused entitlement expiring at the end of each year. Service stations are required to process the card for each fuel sale, this should take the same time as a loyalty points card and the fuel purchased is deducted from the motorist’s allowance at a central data base, with the transaction declined if the ration entitlement is spent; the penalty to the motorist being the same as if they had filled up without the means to pay. Alternatively – pre-approve with a card reader at the pump. The service station is required to account monthly for total fuel sold against all customers’ ration allocations. Automatic number plate recognition IT systems (designed to deter fuel theft) can be adapted to check for ration card misuse, since each card is associated with the DLVA registration.
The scheme can be introduced gently with a generous fuel allocation initially and then reduced progressively. Motorists can then choose whether they buy a more fuel efficient car, moderate their driving behaviour – or keep the SUV and simply drive less. For high mileage business drivers, companies have an imperative to buy the most efficient cars to keep there workforce on the road. For wealthy individuals that can afford luxury cars and disregard high fuel taxes are affected like everyone else, hard-up motorists are not unfairly hit by tax rates designed to hit the rich
I wouldn’t call half a million people protesting on the streets of Madrid total indifference.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50694361
You’ve also misquoted Dylan.
Firstly – where is the poll? It didn’t appear when I logged into this report.
Secondly – Fuel rationing – at what point then will we be told to move closer to our workplace because our fuel allocation doesn’t get us there and back any more?
Thirdly – my disabled wife has a small SUV because she can get in and out easily, without folding herself in two, and because she can see better from a higher seating position. It’s a diesel because it is more efficient than petrol.
Fourthly – there are castles in Wales which sit on hilltops, which when they were built were on the coast – so sea levels have fallen significantly in less than 1000 years, but may be on their way back up. Everything is cyclical. It just depends on where you start and how far back you choose to look.
Fifthly – give more road to bus lanes and cyclists?!! It’s about time cyclists were forced to have registration plates and have insurance, along with paying a road tax commensurate with the road width they occupy. They are not the answer, just another problem.
Finally – half a million protestors – minorities get all the attention, but it doesn’t make them either right or sensible, just one-track sheep.
Spot on!
It is the fossil fuel companies who need to be held to account. It is their responsibility to supply a product that does not pollute, not the customer. I do agree, tree planting is not the solution.
A possible alternative is synthetic fuels.
https://forecourttrader.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/17769/Carbon_neutral_fuel_could_be_here_by_2025_APEA_conference_told.html
This has been proposed for aviation and shipping where electrification is far more challenging. It certainly makes more sense than a transference to biofuels.
Apologies for missing poll on story: that was caused by a website coding glitch. It is now appearing where it should.
Richard H’s suggestion (and link) on synthetic fuels is interesting ~ IF the electricity for electrolytic hydrogen can be had cheaply enough. Renewables ought, in my view, be priced to reflect their capacity factor according to the formula £1, per MW-h, per %CF. Solar PV would therefore be priced at £10 – £15 pew MW-h and it starts to become economical to manufacture H2 (while the sun shines) and store it in gas holders for use 24/7. Certainly far better that, than to attempt to store the electricity using batteries.
I’m dubious about the economics or even energetics of capturing atmospheric CO2 @ 400ppm for what I assume is Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis, better to capture from a concentrated source like cement manufacture:
CaCO3 → CaO + CO2
CaO + SiO2 → CaSiO3
which is a copious and quite intractable source (built into the very chemistry!) of CO2 emissions. OK, the fuel still gets burnt, but at least we get double the benefit, for a given tonnage of CO2. And I’d prioritise the synthetic fuel for aviation use, as that has the greatest need of the power/weight ratio
As the majority of SUV’s with engine sizes above 2l are diesel how does this affect CO2 levels? Diesels produce NOx and very little CO2, is it therefore reasonable to assume that it is petrol driven vehicles causing the problem. The current use of very small highly tuned engines that produce the same power as an engine twice its size could be the problem. CO2 is measured from these vehicles at a defined RPM, at this point they are better at producing less CO” than bigger engines, however, when driving these engines reach very high RPM and generally produce more CO2 than the bigger engines which have more power at lower RPM. There is also the effect of wear, worn engines are more polluting and wear is more likely in a higher revving engine. So maybe SUV’s are not at fault!
Beau Hunter, I think you are possibly thinking of carbon monoxide? Petrol and diesel are both hydrocarbon fuels, representative formula -CH2-CH2-CH2– … the main difference being the chain length. In both cases fuel combustion is substantially complete with C going to CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2 going to H2O (water vapour) all other pollutants being in negligible amounts for the mass balance, though not of course health considerations. So a litre of either fuel will produce similar CO2 emissions (petrol’s lower density compared to diesel offsetting the diesel engine’s higher efficiency)
Apologies to all for misquoting Bob Dylan: have now got my old LPs out and am enjoying them again thanks to Andrew.
It should be noted that as well as ‘road tax’we do actually pay per mile already. It is however hidden in the fuel duties and tax. So a heavy fuel user and hence co2 emitter already pays more! We do not have a viable charging infrastructure and are unlikely to do so for many years. That is the inhibiting factor behind EV unpopularity, aside from cost. Hybrids are only a way round inner city restictions, and because of the additional battery, motors and control gear burden will be less fuel efficient overall than a pure IC vehicle.
Having had long chats with engineers at many of the engine developers, the frustration is the amount of stop starting and slow traffic which uses more fuel that normal cruising, add traffic lights and all the other methods of stopping and starting vehicles, we have a fast declining MPG on all vehicles, is it time to get cars moving and keeping them moving at a steady speed. SUV’s in the 2,0 ltr range are not that bad if they keep steady movement. i am more than happy to park and ride in to towns if parking is sensible but please please please, give me a motorway that i can use cruise control as my 3,0 diesel does 50MPG at 70 with cruise control, M25 is about 30MPG as it is constantly stop start. tax councils who cant keep traffic moving. task police with adjusting roads to keep movement.
From a purely functional perspective, electric motors should’ve superseded the piston engine long ago – KISS. The simple way to make BEVs cost-effective is to carry around a minimal capacity of battery, sufficient for your daily commute. Responsible businesses, with employee car parks full during the day, could provide free recharge from solar panels – then who cares, if you choose to drive an electric bike, city car, SUV or a sports car?
A demountable battery pack would serve to extend the car’s range for longer trips and a sensible network of charging stations should include a battery-swap facility. Refuelling would then be as quick as filling your tank with petrol, diesel or hydrogen. Legislation would be needed to facilitate an orderly, mandatory change to an innovative alternative to rapid charging. A single standard of connection plug would be a good start!
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/155152/electric-car-charging-stations-a-complete-guide
As a transitional (or permanent?) measure – while there’s a managed decline in petrol pumps, over several decades – the micro-turbine REEV may prove to be the best option? (capable of running on a wide range of liquid or gas fuel, I believe.)
Either limit their sales or limit their speed and acceleration.
These are used by mothers taking their kids to school, instead of walking them there. I have seen a woman living not half a mile from a school, drive from her house to school and back again. These vehicles are a menace, or rather the vast majority of people that drive them are. Making a large vehicle to go on crowded public highways is a recipe for disaster.
From my point of view, as a family of five, an SUV is not exactly a luxury but can be a necessity. Try getting three car seats in a megane. There are SUVs and then there are SUVs. We bought a Zafira when the wife was expecting our third child, changed it for a Zafira tourer when they got a lot bigger as teenagers. So I can most definitely see the appeal.
Those that need a big Chelsea tractor to drive in the city, not so good, it’s not necessary.
With regard to owning a 4×4, living in a mainly rural area it is an advantage, particularly in winter. I bought one last year to teach my kids to drive, it’s cheap to run, cheap to tax and cheap to insure, but then it is a Fiat Panda 4×4. 4x4s don’t need to be big heavy things.
In respect of how to tackle the issue, I think hydrogen is the way, only emission being water. Electric using batteries is not the way. Manufacture of the batteries causes pollution and do actually have enough raw materials? What about the supply of electricity, I can’t see that we would be able to do anything other than nuclear power stations, renewables like wind and solar are not reliable.
If family size is a reason for the 4 x 4 Chelsea tractor growth, then maybe the solution might be to limit family size by law. That would also stop population growth, reduce demand for NHS services, reduce food supply issues. I look forward to seeing which party will pick that up in their manifesto.
@ Jack Broughton: Please entertain the possibility that you may be wrong. (in only reading the wrong opinions?)
A “relentless media onslaught” is evident in the fake news put out by the rightwing press, not least in parroting the ‘government’ line that the ‘market’ should be left to its own devices. But, if you care to look, you’ll see more and more articles accepting the science that you dispute.
As for the “government’s attempts to demonise diesel” – they’ve failed to address city pollution, after changing tack from promoting diesel!! As I only clock up 1,400 (mostly rural) miles a year, I would’ve run my old Audi A2 1.4tdi for 30 years, without feeling guilty, if its suspension hadn’t kept failing. “Vorsprung durch Technik” – Don’t make me laugh! It was badly designed and poorly built.
The “people . . with total indifference” are just a new-car-buying minority. That could change with Government incentives. Most can only afford to buy second-hand, so they have little choice. The total indifference I’ve seen is mothers parked up outside a shop or school with the diesel engine running to keep themselves warm!!
For the record, half the new cars bought in Norway are plug-in electric and China produces over 1 million EVs a year. Both economies are directed by central government, one way or another.
I have read with interest the arrival and comments related to it. I I am amazed that the use of public transport is ignored. The average car will travel between 15-20k / year the average bus travels 2x that a year, at speeds lower than 15/mph. And leave the engines running while stationary, which can be as much as 30-40 minutes per hour. We also have commercial aircraft travelling around the world leaving aviation fuel fumes everywhere and at height such it collects in the surrounding clouds. I do have an SUV but I am also a Farmer, my car have auto shut off when the hand bracket is applied and does 60+miles / gallon on a 2L engine. Compare that to any bus and I think it wins hands down
Another lively debate on vehicle use and requirements again – brilliant!
Referring to the comment by Mr A R Whitehead, I agree; when I had the opportunity during the run up to voting day, I spoke to those canvassing irrespective of party supported. i asked the same question to each: if we all change to EV’s how do we generated enough power to run them? What plans do you have (should you win) to upgrade the infrastructure to provide the huge increase in power demand to charge these EV’s? None of the persons I spoke with could provide any sensible answer,; they only seem to consider tail-pipe emissions. My in-law recently purchased a hybrid car (Yaris) but are not finding as economical to run as they expected, and feel a bit misled by the claims made by the manufacturer and sales person.
So yes, politicians should get their facts form ENGINEERS, and consider the WHOLE picture.
Once again, thanks to David Smart for pointing out that I may have a biased viewpoint. He is of course correct in that, I make my mind up by looking at the evidence and am often wrong in my assessments. However, if someone could provide any evidence (not theoretical models) that the climate is doing anything that it has not done many times before I may be persuaded to become a climate activist.
David’s answer to increasing electric car ownership seems to be further subsidy (as with Norway, which can well afford the subsidy). Subsidies take money from one part of the economy and give it to another: they can only be justified if the benefit is real as there are many needy people, the NHS needs more money and Law and Order needs money…….. which is really important to the people? SUVs demonstrate that people, given a free choice, ignore the hype and bias of the general meja, and probably know better that the meja in fact.
Global warming, well we could all go buy carbon credits! seriously, we have volcano’s erupting, forest fires burning creating massive air bourn pollution but still we pursue electric vehicles because they are ‘cleaner’. I would suggest reviewing the building blocks of electric vehicles before we all jump that way. The cadmium being dug by kids from African mines to produce batteries springs to mind! Finally, power production, until someone gets fusion reactors to work maybe we should stay with extremely efficient petrol/diesel engines!
Some odd ideas here, I’m afraid. Switching to clean, green electricity and green hydrogen is a cheaper option, compared to subsidising FF and paying the price for their emissions during the next century. Many people, with vested interests, see no further than the next General Election!
Pressurised (cold) water storage – BGES is king. Let’s reflect on what the science tells us:-
“For electricity generation based on steam turbines 65% of all prime energy is wasted as heat.” Is ‘fusion’ going to be any different, if/when we think we can build a ‘commercial’ plant?!
“Gas turbines, nuclear fission and wind turbines have conversion efficiencies of around 35%” – But wind, wave and tidal power generates no heat and lasts for ever and ever, amen. Sensible folk want to leave fossil fuels in the ground, as insurance against the next Ice Age.
“Modern water turbines operate at mechanical efficiencies greater than 90%” and have a working life more than twice that of horizontal axis wind turbines, especially those at sea.
Pump storage schemes are very efficient for storing energy but there are very few sites left in the UK that can hold sufficient water in the Higher Level reservoir to make the site economical. At the time of the Ffestiniog scheme, the then CEGB did avery comprehensive survey of all the possible sites in the UK that would provide a sensible level of storage for the investment involved. Ffes was the first, the second was also in North Wales using old slate workings for the turbine hall. Apart from that very few others were identified as being economic. With some of the more modern turbine designs it would be possible to go back and have another look, However many of them are in areas of outstanding natural beauty with all the local NIMBIES jumping about.
From memory the ideal height difference was about 4-500 feet between the top and bottom reservoirs. You need very stable ground conditions and the gradient between the two lakes to be steep to reduce the length of penstock pipes and keep the cost down.
The advantage of pump storage is that in a very short time it can be turned from Pumping to Generating. A further great advantage is the system can also be used to give a very stable spinning reserve to the electrical system. Hydro-generators because of there large physical diameter also store a large amount of energy which can be used to stabilise systems under fault conditions.