I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

Indy - Guy said:

ShawnG said:

I remember reading an article long ago that said something along the lines of: Every vehicle comes with roughly a 25 year debt to the environment.

Meaning you need to keep it in service that long to justify it's production.

Perhaps a good way to go would be to stop trying to convince everyone that you need a new vehicle every 5 years. It's not the solution but it would sure help the waste generated. Won't help manufacturers or the government any to push that line of thinking though.

 

Buying used and keeping them running is what I'm doing as my part for the environment.

And anyone that has actually done the full math problem from cradle to end of life and recycling knows this is the wise choice.  I buy things I like and want.  Indy is really doing it right, honestly.  If I were 100% rational when it comes to car, I'd be more like Indy.  Frenchy isn't rational about this at all; he just wants a Tesla.  That's all good and well, but why it takes over 100 pages to admit that is beyond me. 

Winner 100!  When do I get my chicken dinner?  Oh that was a few hours ago and it was delicious!

frenchyd said:

Just because you no longer own a car doesn't mean it's stopped providing transportation. 
 Used cars come from someplace..  

 Here  in the rust belt it's extremely rare for cars to get anywhere near 25 years.   Hopefully cars out of the rust belt can Offset cars of the rust belt.  
 

There are ways to address that too.  Most problems are solveable.  You just really want a Tesla.  Can we at least finally agree on that after all of this?  Your continued efforts to explain it away haven't succeeded and won't until the technology and infrastructure catch up your dream.  It's great to have dreams and goals, but reality, physics and finances are also legitimate considerations. 

frenchyd said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Indy - Guy said:

ShawnG said:

I remember reading an article long ago that said something along the lines of: Every vehicle comes with roughly a 25 year debt to the environment.

Meaning you need to keep it in service that long to justify it's production.

Perhaps a good way to go would be to stop trying to convince everyone that you need a new vehicle every 5 years. It's not the solution but it would sure help the waste generated. Won't help manufacturers or the government any to push that line of thinking though.

 

Buying used and keeping them running is what I'm doing as my part for the environment.

And anyone that has actually done the full math problem from cradle to end of life and recycling knows this is the wise choice.  I buy things I like and want.  Indy is really doing it right, honestly.  If I were 100% rational when it comes to car, I'd be more like Indy.  Frenchy isn't rational about this at all; he just wants a Tesla.  That's all good and well, but why it takes over 100 pages to admit that is beyond me. 

Winner 100!  When do I get my chicken dinner?  Oh that was a few hours ago and it was delicious!

I still own my 1953 mG TD I got in 1962. So go ahead tell me how much better you are.  My 1972 Jaguar  is also well past  a mere 25 years. Same with the 1984 Jaguar. That's 37 years.  If you've trouble doing math. 

I didn't say I was better.  I said Indy was doing it better.  And if you wanted to save the planet and environment you'd drive what you already have instead of continued shilling for Tesla.  And for the record if you want to get into a math debate, you have yet to explain your silly proposition that it takes several years to complete an oil and gas well when presented with the data from TX.  Or did you conveniently forget that?

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) : ... And if you wanted to save the planet and environment you'd drive what you already have...

Exactly what I was wondering about. Can someone explain to me how maintaining a car for 25+ years is a benefit if you still buy and primarily use newer cars for your transportation? Although a 1953 MG TD is sweet, the earth-mother-goddess of trees and things would probably rather see it melted and recycled if it is not in regular use in place of a newer vehicle.

AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) : ... And if you wanted to save the planet and environment you'd drive what you already have...

Exactly what I was wondering about. Can someone explain to me how maintaining a car for 25+ years is a benefit if you still buy and primarily use newer cars for your transportation? Although a 1953 MG TDI is sweet, the earth-mother-goddess of trees and things would probably rather see it melted and recycled if it is not in regular use in place of a newer vehicle.

If you do a full cost accounting of the entire activities of production and recycling, building new from scratch always consumes more resources.  Most accounting methods never consider the full life cycle of anything.  Once something is already built that is a sunk cost in both resources, material and labor.  It's always going to be cheaper to update what you already have.  If you are worried about engine emissions, it is going to be a lot less expensive and more efficient to retrofit a modern engine to an older chassis like a new ford ecoboost or a Honda earth dreams engine.  Most people just want new things for convenience, certain features, or to keep up with the Jones'.  Heck if people really cared about saving the planet and using resources efficiently, we'd see a lot more bicycles in use than currently.  It's not about that and it never has been about that.

In reply to Steve_Jones :

Yes, yes I am a forum God............

frenchyd said:

AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) : ... And if you wanted to save the planet and environment you'd drive what you already have...

Exactly what I was wondering about. Can someone explain to me how maintaining a car for 25+ years is a benefit if you still buy and primarily use newer cars for your transportation? Although a 1953 MG TD is sweet, the earth-mother-goddess of trees and things would probably rather see it melted and recycled if it is not in regular use in place of a newer vehicle.

Well if the pot isn't calling the kettle black?    The whole gist of this magazine is about fun vehicles.  Senseless driving around on race tracks not for economical reasons but  for pure pleasure.    In fact consumables is part of the lexicon.  Fuel/ oil/ tires/ brakes / replacing perfectly good seat belts not for safety reasons ( or they'd need to be periodically replace in street  cars ).  But to sustain the industry that creates them.   Etc.  
 Or just spirited driving on public roads.  

I've got plenty of black pots and kettles (20+ year old cars). My use of them is almost pure pleasure and consumption. I don't see how it benefits the environment. I do see that Mrs AAZCD's near exclusive use of a 2003 Honda Element (20 years of truly being "in service") is better for the environment than buying a new car every 3 to 5 years. My enjoyment of 'hobby cars' is not paying any of the debt to the environment in the way that ShawnG's statement intends. Not my claim. Not my goal.

ShawnG said:

I remember reading an article long ago that said something along the lines of: Every vehicle comes with roughly a 25 year debt to the environment. Meaning you need to keep it in service that long to justify it's production.

Tom1200 said:

In reply to Steve_Jones :

Yes, yes I am a forum God............

You sweet bastard. I told you I'd get you a hundo. Congratulations.

In reply to frenchyd :

I have $500 that says you'll never own a Tesla. IF the model 2 ever gets released, you'll find a reason to not buy it. 

Half of us are just jazzed we could use this thread as an excuse to pump these numbers up . Seriously Frenchy, there's guides for buying used Teslas and even Leaf's are down to the sub $5K range.

In reply to AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) :

Pretty much! Reusing it always better than buying new; it'll be years to decades before my used model 3 competes with the "cost" of one of Indy's used Priuses (please ignore that "personal carbon cost" is made up by oil companies in 2006 to offload the blame of climate change onto consumers you see nothing citizen).

I think I made a convincing enough argument ~80 pages ago that if someone truly wanted to be 'renewable' you'd just live somewhere where you could bike instead of drive, weather permitting. Funny enough, I do and I didn't even intend to.

EDIT: also, are we sure Tom can't see into the future?

In reply to frenchyd :

Except you aren't willing to admit that yes, Technology and infrastructure have caught up. In fact passed.  
    How can you claim that oil which may have come from far out in the ocean.   Off a Billion dollar drilling platform. Shipped to a refinery from a filthy smoke spewing pollution creating ship.  Refined into a usable product  with sometimes marginal concerns about damage to the local  neighborhood. Then hauled on  diesel truck to a local gas station. Where people are required to drive to in order to get fuel periodically.  Is better than collecting some wind or sun or falling water. Locally or even right at a persons home?  
       We have sufficient technology right now and enough resources to meet the needs of using a renewable resource instead of consuming oil?   
   Granted only 7% of the new cars purchased here in the US  are EV's. But nobodies electrical power is going out.  
    More solar panels, wind, hydropower and yes even nuclear power  is a good thing. 
     Using that electrical power to meet people's needs is also a good thing.  
     If renewables wind up shutting down non renewables for economic reasons that too is a good thing. 
 

I think a number of us have provided much evidence that technology and infrastructure have not caught up. They have advanced, and provided options, but have not equaled traditional energy production, under the hood or at the electric meter. While they meet or excel in some requirements- those of which you might find most important- they still come up well short in the requirements of others that they find most important. You are trying to redefine success according to your own personal parameters, while waving away the objections of the majority. 
 

EV's, Solar, etc., can be good things AND also not be ready to replace traditional sources of energy. The two are not mutually exclusive. I fact, I argue that the best solution right now and for decades into the foreseeable future is the use of both forms of energy and transportation, as it will take at least that long to build up our infrastructure. 

frenchyd said:

.......

      EV's are changing not just every 3-4 years.  But every few months.  Sometimes every few weeks.  

Frenchyd, have you ever worked in a manufacturing environment?

Zero chance Tesla is changing something significant every few weeks (at least hardware, maybe software) that's not how industrial manufacturing works.

Edit: this is post # 2,500 in this thread.