Certainly seems to be.tesla are the new twat drivers choice, replacing BMW, range rover etc.
Certainly seems to be.tesla are the new twat drivers choice, replacing BMW, range rover etc.
Oddly, as a Tesla Model S owner, I find I actually agree with you to a point.tesla are the new twat drivers choice, replacing BMW, range rover etc.
Well I'm thinking about trading in my E-class Merc estate for a model 3 Tesla so does that make me a twat or do I get some respite for also having a 15 year old Defender as a back up?Oddly, as a Tesla Model S owner, I find I actually agree with you to a point.
Since the Model 3 became available a very large number of mid ranking BMW car drivers have moved over to the brand and some have brought their obnoxious driving habits with them!
Only if you actually drive like oneWell I'm thinking about trading in my E-class Merc estate for a model 3 Tesla so does that make me a twat or do I get some respite for also having a 15 year old Defender as a back up?
Unlikely, if you're burning anything in an engine, you're always going to create local pollution, CO2 neutral or not. Also, cost wise, it won't be able to compete with EV either, at least not for cars and light goods. The efficiency of an ICE is an order of magnitude less than EV, you just can't alter this fact, whatever fuel you're burning.So the ICE will stay!! So will that make the ICE driven vehicle far more environmentally friendly than the EV?
Not sure, the synthetic fuel still emits nitrous oxides, which are bad for air quality, and then there's the energy used to make the stuff in the first place, which as it involves extracting CO2 from atmosphere, plus splitting Hydrogen from water, is probably going to use a lot of leccy. I had a quick look around t'internet last night and havn't found any real comparison figures so far. But, if you get the leccy from wind turbines or solar, then maybe it is????So the ICE will stay!! So will that make the ICE driven vehicle far more environmentally friendly than the EV?
plus splitting Hydrogen from water, is probably going to use a lot of leccy. I had a quick look around t'internet last night and havn't found any real comparison figures so far. But, if you get the leccy from wind turbines or solar, then maybe it is????
that's the figures I've seen, but you have to ask (and I don't know the answer) 'is producing hydrogen better than trying to store leccy in battery systems?'I’m pretty sure that I’ve read somewhere that the amount of electric used to split water to make hydrogen is something like 7 times more than an EV would use to travel the same distance (if that makes sense)….. so Hydrogen, however it’s made, is a long way off being efficient enough
I’m pretty sure that I’ve read somewhere that the amount of electric used to split water to make hydrogen is something like 7 times more than an EV would use to travel the same distance (if that makes sense)….. so Hydrogen, however it’s made, is a long way off being efficient enough
I just wish the government would bung some money at pure research, then we might get a proper answer and improved efficiencies, and who knows, we might create a world beating industry and earn some money for the UK.splitting water does use lots of leccy, but then so does charging an EV. in reality, if as much had been spent on hydrogen as EV's, we would probably have viable hydrogen engines by now which would probably be a lot more useful than EV's, especially for larger vehicles
both EV & hydrogen have the same common problem though, electric to make everything run
. . . And that means reducing our global population. THAT is the real challenge. Every other problem we have will be reduced and be easier to solve with a lower population. Indeed, many of our problems would simply disappear without any need to 'solve' them.There is no single silver bullet solution for energy savings or replacing energy sources
Reducing consumption has to be top of the agenda
. . . And that means reducing our global population. THAT is the real challenge. Every other problem we have will be reduced and be easier to solve with a lower population. Indeed, many of our problems would simply disappear without any need to 'solve' them.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no acceptable way to reduce our population or our (understandable) desire for an ever-increasing standard of living, and therefore consumption. But if we don't do it voluntarily then events will force something to give and it won't be pretty.
Enter your email address to join: