Fuel costs

[martinw]

Here we go again oops only read the first couple of posts, thought it was going to turn into another petrol vs diesel “debate”

[johnd]

If any of us were actually concerned about mpg we would not be driving a Porsche we would be in something like a Nissum Kashcar or whatever the damn thing is called.

Thing is, that sweeping generalisation isn't actually true. It's perfectly possible to enjoy driving a well-engineered quality car while at the same time having some concerns about carbon footprint aka mpg. OK you have to square that circle somehow by reaching some sort of compromise. It's a personal decision or viewpoint of course, but mine is that I'll try not to drive something that does less than high 20's mpg (ideally >30) or >200 CO2 in the standard tests (seriously flawed though they are, they do provide some sort of relative benchmark). Monetary costs don't come into for me, it's more making some sort of meaningful gesture towards carbon footprint while still enjoying owning & driving.

[Paul]

...although the carbon footprint is no longer the fashion; it’s all about our NOx footprint (until next week when something else will come along)

[goron59]

And if you keep to the main point of this post, it's about reduced fuel costs (and therefore emissions) by not doing boring miles. Have a petrol car, enjoy it. Nothing to do with mpg.

[Col Lamb]

Boring miles for many of us are a necessity.

They are the only practical way of getting from A to B without spending hours on public transport.

Tomorrow I take my Wife to a charity shop where she volunteers, it takes 10 minutes to drive there, if she was to get a bus it would take an hour, there used to be a bus that she took to get there and return but that was scrapped to save cash.

Where we live everyone has to drive on a Sunday because there are no busses.

When we go out to the local Theatre and its again a car journey because the last bus leaves before the Theatre show ends.

So not everyone has the excellent transport links and hence boring miles are a necessity.

Not eveyone is healthy enough to walk of ride a bike to get from A to B locally so yet again more boring miles.

Tomorrow I have also to take rubbish to the tip, so yet again more boring miles.

People who have to drive to commute all do boring miles, unless you commute by motorcycle then you take the long way there and a longer way back because on a motorcycle there are no boring miles.

[Sidscott]

And if you keep to the main point of this post, it's about reduced fuel costs (and therefore emissions) by not doing boring miles. Have a petrol car, enjoy it. Nothing to do with mpg.

....The sarcastic wit and goading intent of this whole post is making this forum CRAP

[johnd]

And if you keep to the main point of this post...

Spoilsport

...although the carbon footprint is no longer the fashion; it’s all about our NOx footprint (until next week when something else will come along)

Well, yes, but CO2 and NOx are both now recognised issues that aren't going away. Granted, the tabloids always have to have some flavour of the month to moan about, but hopefully HMG doesn't take too much notice of the redtops. And conceivably there might be more environmental issues to come, but I'm not quite sure what - hydrocarbon combustion chemistry should be fairly well understood by now and it's not obvious where any further surprises might come from.

[Paul]

And if you keep to the main point of this post...

Spoilsport

...although the carbon footprint is no longer the fashion; it’s all about our NOx footprint (until next week when something else will come along)

Well, yes, but CO2 and NOx are both now recognised issues that aren't going away. Granted, the tabloids always have to have some flavour of the month to moan about, but hopefully HMG doesn't take too much notice of the redtops. And conceivably there might be more environmental issues to come, but I'm not quite sure what - hydrocarbon combustion chemistry should be fairly well understood by now and it's not obvious where any further surprises might come from.

There’ll always be something new to be discovered.....

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articl ... esel-ones/

[johnd]

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articl ... esel-ones/

That does remind me of a paper in the well-known (if you're a professional scientist at least) AAAS journal Science from several years back that compared radioactive emissions from nuclear power stations and coal-fired stations of equivalent output. The coal-fired ones were serious sources of radioactive pollution (naturally-occurring, but concentrated in the fine residual ash particles rising from the chimney), while there was relatively little emission at all from the nuclear stations.

Better stop there, before the thread police come calling.

[LLL]

There’ll always be something new to be discovered.....

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articl ... esel-ones/

Wrong in so many ways. But the oil lobby got to continue with some arguments to keep the oil burning alive...

1. Electric cars have re-generative braking which makes them barely use the brakes on daily driving. Brake pads hence never needs to be switched and wear is much much less than on a ICE-car. The author of the article loose credibility immediately when stating purely wrong information.

2. Electric car is not that much heavier than a ICE-car. Just compare a Tesla S and a Panamera ICE for instance. Not much in it. 100kg maybe.