Lexus PHEV end of 2021 and full EV in 2022

[Mr Vlad]

Well put Chris 👏

[Linas.P]

10 minutes ago, javadude said:

It just needs a mindset change: refuelling is not something to stand around for. It’s something you leave the car to do while you sleep, shop, pee, go to the gym...

I think you are right here - if you could work around charging time, then that is not a problem for you. So it is all about mindset and perspective.

However, saying "only needs to change the mindset" is a slippery slope - how far we changing our minds? Maybe we should change our minds right into walking? With certain mindset "sitting in the bus with stinky people" isn't an issue either! So I think it would be fair to agree what people could and should have their red lines - 20 minutes charge time is red line for me and I won't plan my day around refuelling, nor I am happy to drive without heater/AC/lights and music at 50MPH just to reach my destination. 

Further - you will be small minority of population who could charge their EV at home making your circumstances less than representative for the most.

As I stated many times before complete replacement of ICEs with BEVs would save on 0.7% of global emission, so certainly does not justify the current urge to change.  

[dutchie01]

Or are at the office or have a sandwich at a petrol station. Most people are under the impression that you need to charge full every time which is a misunderstanding. The car will tell you what % charge is needed to reach the destination and that could be as little as 30% wich could be 10 mins.

Times, they are changing.. but not everyone is ready for it.

[dutchie01]

I do like your  Stadler or Waldorf imitation but in the real world there is much more to it. I accept that charging stations in the UK are in the build up phase like in many countries but this will change rapidly. As more BEVs will drive around the demand for chargingstations will increase. When there is money to be made private companies will step in just like what is happening now in Scandinavia and the Netherlands where Shell is installing high speed chargers in ALL of their petrolstations. BTW a friend of mine regularly drives his Tesla S from Holland to Spain without any problem. Things are changing Linas.

[Linas.P]

I want to eat sandwich when I want it and where I want it, not necessarily in petrol station whilst trying to kill time waiting for car to charge... so 10 minutes for 30% charge is still unacceptable.

That things are changing is true, but not every change is good change. Some changes are outright better and there are no discussion about it, but some others are just compromise. Now obviously, there will always be people who can compromise or for whom the weaknesses are just not a problem so they don't even need to compromise. Even myself, if I could have 3 cars and charge at home I can easily see myself driving EV to London and keeping ICE car for weekend or longer drive... sadly that is not the case for me and for most people... and if you really have to have one car EV is far too compromised at the moment. 

Phasing out ICEs with climate change excuse just doesn't make sense, car are just far too small source to matter overall... so this is more of just finding scapegoat and diverting attention from real issues. 

So in summary for me there are 2 fundamental issues:

1. there are no benefit of EVs outside of city centres, where tailpipe pollution matters and therefore I don't see them as solving any problem
2. EVs themselves are very compromised in terms of what they can and can't do... and infrastructure is not there yet. 

 

[Mr Vlad]

As above.

Oh just to add something. I've seen quite a few video reviews on the MG5 EV. Yes I quite like the look of it but one particular review he did a 170 mile trip. 70 on the motorway 50 in roadworks and 30 off motorway because of road closures and he was himself because of range. He drove to a morrisons where the price of charging was high. On the way back he stuck to 60mph and had the heater off. No difference in range.

Absolutely us 'normal' folk won't go electric as the infrastructure is growing But the cars that are affordable have a short range and by short I mean under 200 miles and they're not as practical as our current cars.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Bluesman
trying to beat the profanity filter.

[First_Lexus]

10 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Absolutely us 'normal' folk won't go electric as the infrastructure is growing But the cars that are affordable have a short range and by short I mean under 200 miles and they're not as practical as our current cars.

^^ Totally agree @Mr Vlad

I read in the newspaper last week that the average age of cars in Britain is now the oldest for two decades, at 8.4 years. There are various theories as to why this should be the case - mainly economic - but I’d wager that the push to electric vehicles is at least partly responsible. Many people, myself included, find that an EV won’t conveniently suit what I need from my car. They are also expensive, with limited charging infrastructure, and do require the ‘mindset’ change noted earlier in this thread.

If we assume that EVs are indeed the future - and I’m still convinced that hydrogen is an option - then Government and manufacturers need to do more in order to ensure that those outside of metropolitan areas have both the incentive and the confidence to move. Yes, the numbers show quick growth in EV ownership at the moment, but from a very low base, and even some of the manufacturers believe it has plateaued for now.

I draw comparisons with the EU Referendum vote and with the 2019 General Election (stay with me!). There are groups of people who believe their world view is shared by the majority. However, those people tend to forget that outside of their circle very different opinions, aspirations, and limitations exist for large parts of the population. The Election and Referendum results therefore come as a shock - “it’s unbelievable” they cry - “…those people must be fools.” If we aren’t careful EVs will become another thing that large parts of the population feel is being forced upon them without good reason, with an eventual revolt against them.

[Phil xxkr]

33 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

^^ Totally agree @Mr Vlad

I read in the newspaper last week that the average age of cars in Britain is now the oldest for two decades, at 8.4 years. There are various theories as to why this should be the case - mainly economic - but I’d wager that the push to electric vehicles is at least partly responsible. Many people, myself included, find that an EV won’t conveniently suit what I need from my car. They are also expensive, with limited charging infrastructure, and do require the ‘mindset’ change noted earlier in this thread.

If we assume that EVs are indeed the future - and I’m still convinced that hydrogen is an option - then Government and manufacturers need to do more in order to ensure that those outside of metropolitan areas have both the incentive and the confidence to move. Yes, the numbers show quick growth in EV ownership at the moment, but from a very low base, and even some of the manufacturers believe it has plateaued for now.

I draw comparisons with the EU Referendum vote and with the 2019 General Election (stay with me!). There are groups of people who believe their world view is shared by the majority. However, those people tend to forget that outside of their circle very different opinions, aspirations, and limitations exist for large parts of the population. The Election and Referendum results therefore come as a shock - “it’s unbelievable” they cry - “…those people must be fools.” If we aren’t careful EVs will become another thing that large parts of the population feel is being forced upon them without good reason, with an eventual revolt against them.

Well argued Ed. Twenty odd years ago I was a champion of "location independent workers" made practical by advances in technology. It was a hard sell with employers being unconvinced employees could be trusted if they were off site and out of sight. Yet now there is a headlong rush! What's changed? One motivation I think is the wish to limit people's journeys by limiting their freedom to drive thus contributing towards the pseudo science of climate change. The combination of an EV and a Smart Meter at home raises interesting possibilities in this area. You mention forced decisions, I see this in the nonsense of face mask wearing where non-wearers are social pariahs and compromise the good of the many despite increasing evidence that they will do more harm than good. This will be replicated for drivers of ICE vehicles and will be far more vicious than drivers of 4x4s were subjected to a few years back if anyone can recall. 

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

If we assume that EVs are indeed the future - and I’m still convinced that hydrogen is an option - then Government and manufacturers need to do more in order to ensure that those outside of metropolitan areas have both the incentive and the confidence to move. Yes, the numbers show quick growth in EV ownership at the moment, but from a very low base, and even some of the manufacturers believe it has plateaued for now.

Many good points, however I think EVs are as much of an issue (probably even bigger) in metropolitan areas. Simple matter is that metropolitan areas will have highest ratio of flats and terraced houses with on street parking, leaving the owners unable to charge. The incentive is not there either, and we should recognise difference between "de-incentivising " ICEs, from the EV. The incentive there is makes no meaningful difference e.g. charge point grant (I simply can't use it), tax saving on EV/PHEV (only works on brand new cars), free entry into congestion charge zone (what is the point - there are no parking anyway). Whereas if we look at ICEs - there are loads of very "punishing" rules like high tax, congestion charge etc. which actually works and makes them no longer viable (this is part where I agree EVs are being forced onto people). 

On on the surface it looks like goverment is promoting EVs, but realistically they are still not a choice for average person - one has to have house with off-street parking and be one of few people who buys brand new cars to benefit from that... and that is what we see looking at current EV owners. That is the same reason why sales of EVs have plateaued as well - it simply reached the demand - everyone who could have EV already has one and there are very few people who can switch left. Sure there are still group of people who can actually afford EVs and would benefit from them, "just needs their mindset changed", but it is small. Most of sales now are EV upgrades - meaning people are moving out of first generation EVs or PHEVs into newer EVs.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

One motivation I think is the wish to limit people's journeys by limiting their freedom to drive thus contributing towards the pseudo science of climate change. The combination of an EV and a Smart Meter at home raises interesting possibilities in this area. You mention forced decisions, I see this in the nonsense of face mask wearing where non-wearers are social pariahs and compromise the good of the many despite increasing evidence that they will do more harm than good. This will be replicated for drivers of ICE vehicles and will be far more vicious than drivers of 4x4s were subjected to a few years back if anyone can recall. 

Interesting opinion...

I would not call climate change "pseudo science", I think by now all scientist who are worth that name agrees that there is climate change... however I still have not seen convincing argument whenever that is bad thing and what is causing it. The assumption is that it is caused by human produced greenhouse gases, despite it being ~1-2% of all naturally occurring gasses... That global temperature is rising that is fact, but global temperature raises and falls all the time... so what? Obviously, the second argument is that this is specifically linked with human produced greenhouse gasses - ok... it may be true... so what? Why over billion of years this planet existed it was fine for all forms of organisms and events to emit the greenhouse gases to change the climate, but suddenly human greenhouse gasses are the issue. Now sure we can say Netherlands will be under water in 200 years if we do nothing about it... Do I really care? They build the wall once, maybe they will do it again...

In short one thing is a fact of climate change, but completely another - what does it mean precisely and what we should do about it precisely. Banning ICE cars is certainly not even close to important... replacing them with BEVs is even less important. That is because motoring is such a minor contributor that this change would makes no difference. Should we do it where we can e.g. banning unsafe and heavily polluting vehicles - yes absolutely, but current crusade against all ICE vehicles is step to far in my oppinion. 

As for wearing the masks... that may be small help although I would like to see evidence suggesting they do more harm... must be from flat earth magazine. 

[Phil xxkr]

9 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Many good points, however I think EVs are as much of an issue (probably even bigger) in metropolitan areas. Simple matter is that metropolitan areas will have highest ratio of flats and terraced houses with on street parking, leaving the owners unable to charge. The incentive is not there either, and we should recognise difference between "de-incentivising " ICEs, from the EV. The incentive there is makes no meaningful difference e.g. charge point grant (I simply can't use it), tax saving on EV/PHEV (only works on brand new cars), free entry into congestion charge zone (what is the point - there are no parking anyway). Whereas if we look at ICEs - there are loads of very "punishing" rules like high tax, congestion charge etc. which actually works and makes them no longer viable (this is part where I agree EVs are being forced onto people). 

On on the surface it looks like goverment is promoting EVs, but realistically they are still not a choice for average person - one has to have house with off-street parking and be one of few people who buys brand new cars to benefit from that... and that is what we see looking at current EV owners. That is the same reason why sales of EVs have plateaued as well - it simply reached the demand - everyone who could have EV already has one and there are very few people who can switch left. Sure there are still group of people who can actually afford EVs and would benefit from them, "just needs their mindset changed", but it is small. Most of sales now are EV upgrades - meaning people are moving out of first generation EVs or PHEVs into newer EVs.

London has a fantastic public transport system compared to the rest of the UK. TfL see no reason at all why you need a car hence punitive rates and conditions, eg new builds with zero parking, for having such an upstart opinion contrary to theirs. This attitude is now seeping into other regions such as Birmingham who do not have such a comprehensive public service. Travel further afield say to Derbyshire where I live we get a bus twice day 🤯. But as we are rural and seemingly remote with few votes our opinions don't count. But that's also OK because as a consequence I could not give one jot about any edits emanating from the high and the mighty 

[hockeyedwards]

Just to throw a spanner or two 😛 in the old works (wouldn't be me if I didn't), but think of it as food for thought 🙂 

Porsche are looking into synthetic fuels, imagine if that succeeds... EV's dead in the water? I also think a current oil giant is also looking into this alongside or possibly separately. Do we really think the oil big boys are just gonna roll over...

Toyota's CEO (or someone equally high up) discussed that BEV's are a 'phase' and that the true new direction of future cars is yet to come to fruition

Hydrogen seems to slowly be gaining traction - I can't comment on how good or bad it is, as I haven't read enough to form an opinion

I would also say I agree with it being a mindset change to have an EV full time, but people are entitled to not change their mind. Whilst I think I could adapt to having an EV as a main car in the household, I personally don't want to... 🤷‍♂️ I also think that it is a valid point about affordability of high range EV's in the current market.

[Linas.P]

I think you have described politician and TFL point of view very accurately (having labour Mayor doesn't help either), however you probably meant to put "fantastic" and "comprehensive" public transport in quotes. I mean you are right, it may be better than one in Birmingham or Derbyshire, but that doesn't automatically makes it good service... as in that order we may as well compare it to public transport Mumbai or Baghdad...   

1 minute ago, hockeyedwards said:

Porsche are looking into synthetic fuels, imagine if that succeeds... EV's dead in the water? I also think a current oil giant is also looking into this alongside or possibly separately. Do we really think the oil big boys are just gonna roll over...

Synthetic fuels are a bit of joke to be honest. It means still burning high carbon juice, but simply the production of it is "carbon neutral" - rather than extracting it from the earth, it is made by capturing carbon and recycling other otherwise wasted fuel sources. As such it does not address city centre pollution... cars with synthetic fuel will pollute almost as much (15-30% reduction due to cleaner burn), but in theory helps with greenhouse gases/global warming. 

Now just looking at the stats - it is actually interesting as it is claimed BEVs will reduce emissions by ~30%, so if synthetic fuel can reduce emissions by as much as 30% then you right - ICEs can be as green as BEVs. However, we need to be clear what issue we are trying to address: 

1. City "kerb-side" pollution linked to health problems - this is where ICEs are real issue and where BEVs are actually good solution. Synthetic fuel doesn't help here.
2. Global warming - this is where synthetic fuel would help, but by itself I would argue that private vehicle contribution to global warming is so minute... it is literally irrelevant. So why bother about it.

[hockeyedwards]

22 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That is because motoring is such a minor contributor that this change would makes no difference. Should we do it where we can e.g. banning unsafe and heavily polluting vehicles - yes absolutely, but current crusade against all ICE vehicles is step to far in my oppinion.

I kinda agree, I do believe ICE do contribute to environmental change/ damage, but yes, on a much smaller scale than largest industry in whatever country you may be from worldwide. It is a bit like the energy saving lightbulb phenomenon, sod the factory down the road pumping out toxic waste of every orifice, my A+ rated bulbs will cancel that out! And our latest crusade is microplastics, my reusable metal straws will combat the tonnes of fishing equipment dumped into the ocean every year...😆

Also would love to see the stats on the % difference of pollution caused by industry making ICE cars vs. BEV's?

[Phil xxkr]

19 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Interesting opinion...

I would not call climate change "pseudo science", I think by now all scientist who are worth that name agrees that there is climate change... however I still have not seen convincing argument whenever that is bad thing and what is causing it. The assumption is that it is caused by human produced greenhouse gases, despite it being ~1-2% of all naturally occurring gasses... That global temperature is rising that is fact, but global temperature raises and falls all the time... so what? Obviously, the second argument is that this is specifically linked with human produced greenhouse gasses - ok... it may be true... so what? Why over billion of years this planet existed it was fine for all forms of organisms and events to emit the greenhouse gases to change the climate, but suddenly human greenhouse gasses are the issue. Now sure we can say Netherlands will be under water in 200 years if we do nothing about it... Do I really care? They build the wall once, maybe they will do it again...

In short one thing is a fact of climate change, but completely another - what does it mean precisely and what we should do about it precisely. Banning ICE cars is certainly not even close to important... replacing them with BEVs is even less important. That is because motoring is such a minor contributor that this change would makes no difference. Should we do it where we can e.g. banning unsafe and heavily polluting vehicles - yes absolutely, but current crusade against all ICE vehicles is step to far in my oppinion. 

As for wearing the masks... that may be small help although I would like to see evidence suggesting they do more harm... must be from flat earth magazine. 

I do love the way you argue against yourself Linas😎 We both agree that the climate changes, everyone does, and always has done and always will. And we both agree it is unproven that it is a consequence of anthropogenic activity. Yet the world is awash not with Co2 (currently below optimal levels) but with people claiming to be an expert in climate yet having no qualifications in it, saying its down to humans and we have 9 years to fix it. If that's not pseudo science then I don't know what is! This is where we disagree. And I earnestly ask you to not read the Flat Earth Magazine (otherwise how would you know the content.) but read, for example the GWPF, Principa Scientific, The BMJ et al for sensible content 

[hockeyedwards]

15 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Synthetic fuels are a bit of joke to be honest. It means still burning high carbon juice

Apologies, my statement wasn't very clear. I wasn't arguing synthetic fuels to be more/ less harmful. More so, that if they could create them, manufacturers that currently have 90% ICE sales are likely to push hard for synthetics and retain development of ICE's over BEV's 😛

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, hockeyedwards said:

Also would love to see the stats on the % difference of pollution caused by industry making ICE cars vs. BEV's?

I don't have accurate current stats, the last time I seen proper global industry pollution chart was like 2012 or 2016 (need to find it again).

Transportation was 10%, manufacturing was ~40%. What is important that Transportation includes everything (planes, public transport, ships, trains etc), the private vehicle part of it was 2.4%, 0.3% petrol/hybrid and 2.1% diesel. 

Most experts currently agree that life-time emissions reduction by average BEV are around 30% compared to average ICE. 

In conclusion, if we replace every car from ICE to BEV overnight, we will reduce private vehicle emissions by 0.7% and total human greenhouse emissions by ~0.007%. If you ask that doesn't sound like massively important thing to me... 

[Linas.P]

5 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

This is where we disagree. 

Now that you explained it... I don't think we disagree. You just said "climate change pseudo science" and without any other explanation I thought you mean - climate change is not real. Whereas you meant "pseudo science for climate change solution"... and that is basically what I said as well and where I agree with you... All these shouting maniacs have no clue what they are talking about, no understanding about science and many of them don't have formal education of any sort... most of our politicians included. And when such people start making decisions we all end-up in very bad place... 

[Phil xxkr]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Now that you explained it... I don't think we disagree. You just said "climate change pseudo science" and without any other explanation I thought you mean - climate change is not real. Whereas you meant "pseudo science for climate change solution"... and that is basically what I said as well and where I agree with you... All these shouting maniacs have no clue what they are talking about, no understanding about science and many of them don't have formal education of any sort... most of our politicians included. And when such people start making decisions we all end-up in very bad place... 

She looks a very well balanced and happy child 😎

[Alan305]

This site provides a little balance on climate change.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com

 

 

[Phil xxkr]

27 minutes ago, Alan305 said:

This site provides a little balance on climate change.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com

 

 

Always a good source Alan 👍

[Alan305]

When I worked in Lund and Malmö in the 90’s and sat outside cafes watching Swedish young ladies go by on their cycles, none looked like, or as upset as, Greta.

[LenT]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

All these shouting maniacs have no clue what they are talking about, no understanding about science and many of them don't have formal education of any sort... most of our politicians included. 

 

On a point of information, Linas - and accepting your generally jaundiced view of The Establishment  - I very much doubt that you can find even one of our 650 MPs who didn’t have a “formal education of any sort”.  However, I’ve always thought that it is a career that attracts far too many people who think that a PPE degree - of any sort - is the ideal qualification.

I do agree that it attracts far too few who have what is termed a STEMM background - science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine.  In fact the most recent assessment (2017) puts it at just 106.  And just a handful of them at ministerial level.  It maybe that such people feel they can be more productive and earn more in their chosen careers than risk exposing themselves to public opprobrium as an MP.

Whatever ones political view, Margaret Thatcher was an exception in that she had a BsC in Chemistry, worked as a Research Chemist and later qualified as a Barrister, specialising in tax law, before becoming the first woman PM.  

But of course the Electorate can only elect those who are prepared to stand.

[Phil xxkr]

14 minutes ago, LenT said:

On a point of information, Linas - and accepting your generally jaundiced view of The Establishment  - I very much doubt that you can find even one of our 650 MPs who didn’t have a “formal education of any sort”.  However, I’ve always thought that it is a career that attracts far too many people who think that a PPE degree - of any sort - is the ideal qualification.

I do agree that it attracts far too few who have what is termed a STEMM background - science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine.  In fact the most recent assessment (2017) puts it at just 106.  And just a handful of them at ministerial level.  It maybe that such people feel they can be more productive and earn more in their chosen careers than risk exposing themselves to public opprobrium as an MP.

Whatever ones political view, Margaret Thatcher was an exception in that she had a BsC in Chemistry, worked as a Research Chemist and later qualified as a Barrister, specialising in tax law, before becoming the first woman PM.  

But of course the Electorate can only elect those who are prepared to stand.

A hero of mine Thomas Sowell, demonstrates some wise insights in his book Intellectuals and Society and demonstration of the effects of alleged elites on our democracy 

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, LenT said:

On a point of information, Linas - and accepting your generally jaundiced view of The Establishment  - I very much doubt that you can find even one of our 650 MPs who didn’t have a “formal education of any sort”.  

Sorry, my sentence wasn't really the best and conflated everything in one place (politicians an maniacs fits well together) - I meat to say:

"All these shouting maniacs have no clue what they are talking about, no understanding about science and many of them don't have formal education of any sort. Prime example our dear Greta, who during her now famoust speach ("how dare you") had Primary Education as the highest level of formal education. To be fair to her she since have completed secondary education, but I am not sure that qualifies her for position of "global climate change expert". 

Most of our politicians, have no clue what they are talking about either, nor understanding about science. And when such people start making decisions we all end-up in very bad place... "

And probably upon further reflection - it is not a matter of politicans understanding the issues... it is a matter of them wanting to address them. Sometimes it is simply easier and more politically beneficial to simply find the scape goat (i.e. motorists) instead of focusing on real solution. So politicians with STEMM edication may actually understand the issues, but that doesn't mean they will move a finger to do anythign about it.