Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
TheCountOfNowhere

Biggest annual drop in car sales since 2009

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

 

Keep the car for 4 years and you will have spent 7200 GBP extra on fuel and 1200 extra on tax . Suddenly the choice between driving a newer, safer, simpler, lower risk, and more convenient car (if you have a driveway) ... 8400 GBP ... is a lot of money ... and that's hidden cost of taking hte risk that the substantial number of extra moving and wearing parts won't fail.

Shhhhh. never point this out to the ICE ignorant, we need them filling the exchequer coffers with fuel duty and VED duty for several years yet, while we buy our shiny new BEV that do 200+ miles and can achieve 5 miles /kwh, when we pay 5p kwh overnight to charge, giving us 1p p/m tax free fuel costs (well not true tax free, we pay 5% VAT on leccy, but we can lobby to have that abolished "for the environment")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Not a highly sealed place that a tank would be able to instantly disperse in to and nowhere else. You'd have to go out of your way to design a car where the conditions for that sort of explosion were likely.

If the gas flow in > gas flow out, you will get an increase in mol fraction. 

You should check out what happens when a hydrogen container is heated vs a petrol tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, markyh said:

Shhhhh. never point this out to the ICE ignorant, we need them filling the exchequer coffers with fuel duty and VED duty for several years yet, while we buy our shiny new BEV that do 200+ miles and can achieve 5 miles /kwh, when we pay 5p kwh overnight to charge, giving us 1p p/m tax free fuel costs (well not true tax free, we pay 5% VAT on leccy, but we can lobby to have that abolished "for the environment")

Total free public charging here in NI too. Possible to drive with zero fuel costs, 1% BIK and 100% FYA. With decent range model it's a no brainer from April. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

You start with the premise that people are inherently peaceful?

No, I start with facts and reason. 

People are significantly shaped by their social environment, so to ask what they "inherently" are is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Locke said:

If the gas flow in > gas flow out, you will get an increase in mol fraction. 

You should check out what happens when a hydrogen container is heated vs a petrol tank.

All you're saying there is "hydrogen can explode". Now consider what's likely to to be the case in a hydrogen-powered car that gets involved in an accident. Tank gets ruptured quickly - gas disperses before anything can set it off. If it gets heated? What's heating it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

All you're saying there is "hydrogen can explode". Now consider what's likely to to be the case in a hydrogen-powered car that gets involved in an accident. Tank gets ruptured quickly - gas disperses before anything can set it off. If it gets heated? What's heating it?

Hot engine. Leaking battery. Other vehicles on fire. 

I am saying that the consequences of igniting hydrogen are potentially much more dramatic than petrol or diesel.

https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Risk Assessment of Hydrogen Explosion for Private Car with Hydrogen-Driven Engine.pdf

They've scrubbed it from the internet now, but I saw a paper on what happens when one these tanks goes off under a car- there is nothing  left.

Look also at those Tesla pyres to see what happens when you dump a significant fraction of an energy source in a short space of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the chances of that happening are...? Under very specific circumstances, just perhaps. The risk isn't simply the worst possible outcome, it's the combination of possible outcomes and likelihoods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Riedquat said:

And the chances of that happening are...? Under very specific circumstances, just perhaps. The risk isn't simply the worst possible outcome, it's the combination of possible outcomes and likelihoods.

  • Hazard is the worst possible outcome.
  • Risk is the probability it happening.
  • Harm is a view of the damage (persons or property) expected if the event defined in the Hazrad actually occurs.

The point everyone is making is: why the heck take the risk anyway if it is not necessary? Especially since the Hazard is significant.

Fuel stations blow up, Hydrogen stations blow up. ICE cars burn, ICE cars blow up (albeit vbery infrequently!!!!), EVS do burn in extremely limited numbers*.

HFCEVs may or may not burn, HFCEVs might or might not blow up ... dependening on the engineering of the fuel cell of course ... I haven't seen much evidence of this ... there aren't that many of them on the road so if a few of them do blow up the population might not be big enough for use to extrapolate to actual Risk without risking (lol) lazy statistical analysis.

But in all this Hazard, Risk, and Harm discussion there is 1 winner - EVs. As to whether or not the Risk (in the context of the Hazard) of an ICE (or a FCEV) is significant or not is a moot point. EVs are the one power train that do not require a new network (of varying levels of Hazard, and varying levels of Risk) .. that is one we don't already have for other purposes than transport.

What is not irrelevant is the risk of the networks that both ICE and FCEV (to a lower degree, and albeit even less when (if) the network and industry scale out) will require over and above what society uses for other things (eg: the electrictity grid). Pollution (local and global). *drops the mic*.

Notably: EVS don't blow up - and anyone who wants to reference the video of a fire in a chinese underground car park should look very carefully at the timestamps on the video.

Also: After billions of miles on the road the events of EV fires (not explosions) are way more limited than - in proportion to miles driven - the Risk of ICE fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Locke said:

Hot engine. Leaking battery. Other vehicles on fire. 

I am saying that the consequences of igniting hydrogen are potentially much more dramatic than petrol or diesel.

https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Risk Assessment of Hydrogen Explosion for Private Car with Hydrogen-Driven Engine.pdf

They've scrubbed it from the internet now, but I saw a paper on what happens when one these tanks goes off under a car- there is nothing  left.

Look also at those Tesla pyres to see what happens when you dump a significant fraction of an energy source in a short space of time.

And Hazard of a fire and Hazard of an explosion are two very different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Locke said:

No, I start with facts and reason. 

People are significantly shaped by their social environment, so to ask what they "inherently" are is nonsense.

What facts do you have that prove that people are inherently peaceful? Please reference the people groups of significant size under limited resources (esp. space) and any form of materialism that have both:

  • remained peaceful of their own accord
  • haven't dissolved into some form of government/regulation

...?

There are a number of facts that prove that human social environments very often dissolve into violent places OR places in which the threat of violence is the only thing holding violence back in the first place.

Yeah, I deal in facts and reason too. Until you resolve the facts of human society the reasons are of limited use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Aidan Ap Word said:
  • Hazard is the worst possible outcome.
  • Risk is the probability it happening.
  • Harm is a view of the damage (persons or property) expected if the event defined in the Hazrad actually occurs.

The point everyone is making is: why the heck take the risk anyway if it is not necessary? Especially since the Hazard is significant

Risk is the combination of them all, that's what you assess in a risk assessment. That's why we're not bothered about knocking in to something where virtually every time you wouldn't even go as far as saying "ow", because the probability is high but the consequences negligable, so there's little actual risk. Think about it - the very word carries connations of a negative outcome, we don't say the "risk" of a positive outcome.

As for "why take the risk if it's not necessary", because it's low enough that you've got to be utterly paranoid to worry about it. Why take the risk of wearing shoes with laces that could come undone and trip you up when there are alternatives? Because even though people have tripped up with very serious consequences to themselves the odds of it are low enough to not be a concern.

The excessive concern with "risk", the obsession with safety even in cases of incredibly low probability is dangerous itself - it has a big boy who cried wolf effect which can lead to people not taking some risks as seriously as they should.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Risk is the combination of them all, that's what you assess in a risk assessment. That's why we're not bothered about knocking in to something where virtually every time you wouldn't even go as far as saying "ow", because the probability is high but the consequences negligable, so there's little actual risk. Think about it - the very word carries connations of a negative outcome, we don't say the "risk" of a positive outcome.

As for "why take the risk if it's not necessary", because it's low enough that you've got to be utterly paranoid to worry about it. Why take the risk of wearing shoes with laces that could come undone and trip you up when there are alternatives? Because even though people have tripped up with very serious consequences to themselves the odds of it are low enough to not be a concern.

The excessive concern with "risk", the obsession with safety even in cases of incredibly low probability is dangerous itself - it has a big boy who cried wolf effect which can lead to people not taking some risks as seriously as they should.

Odd that you would question ISO standard terminology?

Your misunderstanding is exactly why Hazard (falling over) and Harm (bumps or scratches) are understood separately in industrial risk assessment. And exactly why 'unintended use' is an undertsood (even defined) concept in the various levels of industrial risk assessment across different industries and even in different sectors.

And exactly why risk assessment (which covers process around all of Hazard, Harm, Risk, intended and unintended use (eg: shoelaces undone)) is only meaningfully done when you isolate what you term as "risk" into it's component parts.

The "risk" (in your 'definition') of another ship hitting an oil ship in the south china sea and killing everyone on board is negligible in your definition.
Does that mean it didn't happen? No, it did.
Does that mean there was no harm to the people on board - no, they *all* died, both crews.
Does that mean there was no harm to the families of the people who died - you would have to be completely insensitive.
Does it mean there was no harm to the stuff being shipped ? - every *thing* was lost too (though any reasonable person would think that less important).
Does it mean they didn't have to clean it up afterwards? No - they had to clean it up or it would leave a Hazard in the sea, and Harm the local environment and increase the Risk to other shipping in that lane.

Do you doubt the "risk" of the pollution in an ICE? Where the "risk" (as you so glibly lump it together) is an obvious Harm to people ... and - in all but the quackiest of scientists - the Harm to the environment?

Does this mean we should stop shipping oil around the world immediately? Spoiler alert: oil ships travel the world regardless of this incident, and for good reasons in keeping with the Risk (in terms of the real definition of Risk) of it happening again.

Does it mean we should ignore the implications of our actions? Well ... that is - of course - up to you. But since I have an alternative (yes, I am lucky enough to be able to afford a car and a driveway) ... I will happily suggest to the millions of other people who also have an alternative (also lucky enough to be able to afford cars and driveways) that their lives can continue - and even be enhanced - without having to poison others and (alebit in extreme cases) kill people.

And how do you assess the "risk" of all this in the context of the recorded fact that 1 person dies every 3 days (globally, yes) in the extraction and refinement (alone) of fuel oil?
Let's be clear - this is not about the "risk" that this happens - this is about regular happenigns regardless of best efforts.
Let's be clear - these people die on the way to, on, in and around oil rigs in remote parts of the world - not for reasons of unintended use (leaving your shoe laces untied) ... but simply because the Risk of their actions cannot be totally mitigated. This is because actions like travelling in helicopters in high winds on long over-sea journeys are an inherently bad idea and should only be undertaken when you have no alternative.

Where possible: Hazard should be avoided, and restoration made after Harm (though resurrecting people is pretty hard), and Risk mitigated by specific actions. If you can solve for all those three things to an appropriate degree (where "appropriate" is understood in the context of the loss or disadvantage) then it is a reasonable thing to do. Personally I would advocate for - when a real alternative exists - avoid doing dumb stuff that is riddled with problems in the first place.

 

Edited by Aidan Ap Word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, longgone said:

it is if they don`t even change anything ? i pay £400 for one minor and one major service 2 years european roadside and two free MOT`s

OK, so I could use roadside assistance (for what 60 GBP a year?) and I will - in some years - require MOTs (40 GBP each) ... 

(400 - 60 - 40 - 40)

So in those 2 years I only save 260  GBP ... not 400 ... OK ...

But then I only get a 8580 miles (at 3p a mile) for the remaining money I haven't spent ... poor me ... that's only half of my annual mileage ... bitterly disappointed. Not.

After all in a comparable ICE car those 8580 miles would only have cost me 1716 GBP in fuel ...

Spending *any* money on maintenance is wasted money ... and you only get the privilege of having to waste that money by pouring an expensive liquid into the tank only to utterly destroy. To pretend this is not relevant is to ignore basic mathematics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

OK, so I could use roadside assistance (for what 60 GBP a year?) and I will - in some years - require MOTs (40 GBP each) ... 

(400 - 60 - 40 - 40)

So in those 2 years I only save 260  GBP ... not 400 ... OK ...

But then I only get a 8580 miles (at 3p a mile) for the remaining money I haven't spent ... poor me ... that's only half of my annual mileage ... bitterly disappointed. Not.

After all in a comparable ICE car those 8580 miles would only have cost me 1716 GBP in fuel ...

Spending *any* money on maintenance is wasted money ... and you only get the privilege of having to waste that money by pouring an expensive liquid into the tank only to utterly destroy. To pretend this is not relevant is to ignore basic mathematics.

 

your calculation depends very much on how many miles is driven.  a depreciating 40k nissan leaf is not a good investment however you look at it.  

what if i own a £750 car and only drive 1-2k miles a year am i saving anything by buying an EV ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2020 at 09:26, Locke said:

Are you dumb? The worldwide car industry is toast.

Sure it is, the 1.5 billion cars plus that need replacing with zero emission vehicles are going to appear by magic.

The UK industry is toast because the risk of Brexit shutting us off from the single market killed investment stone dead at a crucial time for making the transition to EVs.

In 2015 the car industry here was on a roll with projections of +2m being made here by 2020, JLR was going to make the UK its global centre for EVs, Elon Musk had said he favoured the UK or Tesla's European production centre.  All of that has now turned to dust.

JLR's decision to use BMW for EV drivetrains together with Tesla's decision to put its design centre plus battery and vehicle production centre in Germany (a nice £20bn a year Brexit dividend for them) killed off any chance we had of reaching the production levels required to be a major player in the EV market.  

Maybe in 20 years when we are all driving EVs, that will last +1m miles, the global industry will be toast but until there are huge fortunes to be made.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2020 at 09:46, Social Justice League said:

One of the reasons why there is suddenly a big push to get everyone driving terrible electric vehicles is because the car industry needs to keep selling you the same thing again and again, or they go bust.

More consumption isn't going to fix the planet.

The reason there is a push is that they can see the writing is on the wall and if they don't jump now they are not going to survive.

I suspect that within the next 12 months we will know which companies will survive and which will not. The ones that will are going to be making massive investments in the move to EVs (Mercedes just slashed its dividend to fund EV research) the others will probably stop research spending altogether and make as much money as they can while they can still sell their ICEs.

As to the current cars being terrible it might be an idea I you tried driving one. Most people who do are immediately converted and wouldn't want to go back to a sluggish and noisy ICE.   

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, longgone said:

your calculation depends very much on how many miles is driven.  a depreciating 40k nissan leaf is not a good investment however you look at it.  

what if i own a £750 car and only drive 1-2k miles a year am i saving anything by buying an EV ?

So how much is a new set of batteries for a leaf? I guess a lot more than 750.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GreenDevil said:

Already here. Who buys a new car these days? 

Who buys a new house?.....the issue is not new, used or old, it is ownership.....who owns anything these days?.....rent means a collection of new money every day, a forever increasing guaranteed income......nobody can collect rent from those that own.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you will all be saying....we will charge you a toll to use the road, a higher tax on fuel...high insurance premiums......we will price you out of your own car....get with the programme.......you know you want to, will be good for you.;)

 

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting slightly off topic I found this article interesting this week. I understand that people need to use private vehicles but have for a long time been frustrated with peoples over-reliance on vehicles in towns and cities. In central London the private car has been largely eradicated but replaced with the dreaded Uber taxi. Also, Amazon style deliveries account for a huge amount of congestion in the city centre. Apparently the Uber taxis will often be driving around randomly in circles waiting for the app to ping them a fare, is that acceptable? I don't think it is if we are supposed to serious about congestion, CO2 and air quality. Also..

..of the 6.8m private vehicle trips made daily in Greater London, 4.2m could be walked or cycled.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 316 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.