Top Gear

[Tom]

How do you know they haven't hired new researchers, directors and producers?

Or are you basing your argument on something you made up?

 

[Lollie]

maybe the people who complain its stale and needs new ideas could come up with some and pitch them to top gear?

 

[ford prefect]

Ok, he we go again.

First of all inflation drives up production costs annually, yet TG didn't recieve a budget increase, instead they were handed a budget freeze for at least five years which is in effect a budget cut due....

All very good points, but I would question the pay rise, but I could be wrong. I read somewhere - probably the rumour mill, that Clarkson was on something around £1million a year under his BBC contract and that was some time ago. It was Clarkson who first pitched the new format to the BBC in 2002 and I would guess that he has some share of that format which is now being duplicated acrosss the world and is becomming quite a successful franchise. I would guess (pure guess work) that it is in his interest to keep Top Gear on the air and as much in the public eye as possible (which I daresay throw away media sound bytes about mexicans and lorry drivers come from).

I could of course be completely wrong.

 

[Lamp]

I'm sure Clarkson's on much more than that. 2m+

 

[ST^]

Just in case anyone still took Top Gear seriously...

Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[Raven]

Do people still take the guardian seriously too?

 

[ECA]

The guardian is as ridiculous as the daily mail.

 

[Tom]

The Top Gear piece was pretty fair if you ask me. Electric cars are massively expensive, they don't go far, and when they run out of juice it takes ages to recharge them. Also, the batteries don't last very long.

Monbiot should put his money where his mouth is, and buy one. Bet he won't.

 

[old.user4556]

Monbiot is such a patronising cunt.

 

[Job]

Thanks for mentioning Moonbat so I can laugh while i'm pointing out how totally
pointless electric cars are at the moment.
If we were actually serious about saving the planet from ourselves, then the electric car would come about 1000th, in fact it's almost undoubtedly 'worse' for the environment that the petrol car.
Unless we replaced all cars with super lightweight space frames and interiors, powered by 10 hp electric motors and simple lead acid batteries and we all trundle around at 20mph and the electricity comes from wind/tide power using proper technology, not the subsidised boloks technology that windmills are.
This is do able of course if everyone accepted that's how it is and got on with it
Oh and we need to ditch those 10kw electric showers and eat are food raw and wear sweaters instead of central heating.
When I see those electric cars with exactly the same spec as a modern petrol car, heaters, 80mph top speed, 100hp motor, full spec interiors, airbags and a fukcing huge lithium power pack to keep it all going it makes me smile, exactly what part of that is green?
Just burn the freakin oil till it runs out and hope you have invented something else or it's the Tottenham riots all over the world.

 

[Lollie]

Clarkson even says they are a good idea but the technology is there yet, the batteries are shite

 

[Ch3tan]

They are a shit idea, electricity isn't a "green fuel", it still takes other fuels to produce it.

LPG or hybrid for now if you want to reduce the impact to your wallet, and do a small bit to potentially reduce pollution that may or may not affect anything. Hydrogen long term.

 

[DaGaffer]

I can't bring myself to read anything Monbiot says; zealots are always such a pain in the arse. All I do know is that its not a great idea to waste the very limited supply of lithium in the world on car batteries, especially when you end up with such a compromised final product.

 

[Ormorof]

its still pretty cheap to charge an electric car, to fully charge the batteries costs about €2-5 for a full overnight charge (which is where most people will be doing their charging) depending on which country you are in

and if you look at the fuel efficiency of electric cars even if all the electric energy came from coal plants you would end up with a smaller carbon footprint (for the Leaf it would be around 85g/km, with green fuels/power used that would go down a lot) than if you used normal petrol cars

i do agree that the batteries need to be better though, but as production improves they should get better, what needs to happen for this to make any kind of impact is to increase the output of electricity through renewable or clean(er) fuels, such as wind, hydro or nuclear (which from my point of view is the easiest way to make it work), otherwise we just end up bumping up the price of petrol and electricity to a point where we might as noth ave bothered in the first place

hydrogen cells would work brilliantly, but it is still very much in the development phase, and theres no kind of infrastructure at the moment, not to mention the challenges of storing, transporting or creating "on demand" hydrogen, the electric engine is a bit simpler (and has been around for a long time), its main obstacle has been the battery capacity, which is not bad in the Leaf, its not meant as a replacement to your family car if your daily commute involves driving from London to Lincoln, but if you drive less than 50-100km then its fine (you wouldnt buy a tractor to commute around the centre of london so why buy an electric car if you want to drive from one end of the country to the other on a daily basis?)

 

[Ch3tan]

I just read that article, the guy is as much of a knob cheese as clarkson himself. Extremist idiots both of them.

 

[Tom]

Except I don't believe Clarkson has ever suggested "silencing" his critics as a viable option, whereas Monbiot always does just that.

 

[Job]

I just read that article, the guy is as much of a knob cheese as clarkson himself. Extremist idiots both of them.

Except Moonbat actually believes it, whereas Clarkson is just playing the loud mouth rightwinger for effect.

 

[DaGaffer]

its still pretty cheap to charge an electric car, to fully charge the batteries costs about ?2-5 for a full overnight charge (which is where most people will be doing their charging) depending on which country you are in

and if you look at the fuel efficiency of electric cars even if all the electric energy came from coal plants you would end up with a smaller carbon footprint (for the Leaf it would be around 85g/km, with green fuels/power used that would go down a lot) than if you used normal petrol cars

i do agree that the batteries need to be better though, but as production improves they should get better, what needs to happen for this to make any kind of impact is to increase the output of electricity through renewable or clean(er) fuels, such as wind, hydro or nuclear (which from my point of view is the easiest way to make it work), otherwise we just end up bumping up the price of petrol and electricity to a point where we might as noth ave bothered in the first place

hydrogen cells would work brilliantly, but it is still very much in the development phase, and theres no kind of infrastructure at the moment, not to mention the challenges of storing, transporting or creating "on demand" hydrogen, the electric engine is a bit simpler (and has been around for a long time), its main obstacle has been the battery capacity, which is not bad in the Leaf, its not meant as a replacement to your family car if your daily commute involves driving from London to Lincoln, but if you drive less than 50-100km then its fine (you wouldnt buy a tractor to commute around the centre of london so why buy an electric car if you want to drive from one end of the country to the other on a daily basis?)

There are so many "if's, buts and maybes" about electric cars though; take your comments above;

1. Yes electricity is way cheaper, but that's not reflecting the true cost of petrol v. electric because the biggest variable between prices is tax; net of tax petrol is still actually quite cheap.

2. Yes the CO2 for the leaf is lower even including power station emissions, but C02 is distorting the argument; what about the toxicity of lithium production? Its evil stuff. Plus, you argue that its not designed to be your primary car; well that's all well and good, but two cars are always going to be more environmentally damaging than one over their lifetime because so much of the environmental impact of a car is in its production and disposal.

3. "Green" energy, with the exception of nuclear (and hydro if you're fortunate) is not the answer; it only works because of subsidies and tax incentives, and once again, the C02 argument distorts the environmental impact of the technology. Renewables have a place, but its not in the grid.

Bottom line is the Leaf and its ilk are a sop to rich people to make them think they're being green, when they're actually being anything but, which is true of a lot of green technologies.

 

[Ormorof]

There are so many "if's, buts and maybes" about electric cars though; take your comments above;

1. Yes electricity is way cheaper, but that's not reflecting the true cost of petrol v. electric because the biggest variable between prices is tax; net of tax petrol is still actually quite cheap.

2. Yes the CO2 for the leaf is lower even including power station emissions, but C02 is distorting the argument; what about the toxicity of lithium production? Its evil stuff. Plus, you argue that its not designed to be your primary car; well that's all well and good, but two cars are always going to be more environmentally damaging than one over their lifetime because so much of the environmental impact of a car is in its production and disposal.

3. "Green" energy, with the exception of nuclear (and hydro if you're fortunate) is not the answer; it only works because of subsidies and tax incentives, and once again, the C02 argument distorts the environmental impact of the technology. Renewables have a place, but its not in the grid.

Bottom line is the Leaf and its ilk are a sop to rich people to make them think they're being green, when they're actually being anything but, which is true of a lot of green technologies.

point two, yes Lithium Ion batteries are difficult to make and need to be improved, but are they as much an environmental disaster as the construction of catalytic converters with heavy metals? many of the palladium mines in Russia (where the majority comes from) are described as some of the worst environmental disasters on the planet. so either way you are going to have some environmental impact, the difference being that Lithium is much more common than Palladium and Platinum (seeing as they are heavy metals and most of the worlds heavy metals are in China)

you may have misunderstood my point about it not being your primary car, it IS meant to be your primary car, BUT only if it is suitable, if you buy a car that is not suitable for the purpose you need it for then its your own fault (if you have 5 kids you dont buy a smart car as your primary car for example)

and i agree about the point about renewables, they are not cheap at all (even with the subsidies its crazy expensive electricity), which is why the electricity infrastructure needs a boost (which is unlikely at the moment given the current political climate towards nuclear, and the complete lack of funds)

 

[DaGaffer]

Catalytic Converters are also part of the "bad environmental science" argument. When they were first introduced, certain car manufacturers (I think Honda was the main one) had already posited lean burn alternatives that could have done the same or better job than CCs, but the lobbyists didn't want to know so a bad a technological solution has been foisted on us ever since. So much of environmental policy over the last 30 years has been based on bad science, bad numbers and pressure groups who don't let lack of facts get in the way of their agenda.

We should be getting away from burning oil on economic/scarcity grounds, not environmental ones, because when it comes to the environment we simply don't know what we're doing.

 

[ford prefect]

Couple of points:

Clarkson did get the price on new batteries wrong, they are actually refurbished and it costs a couple on hundred quid at the moment.

Lithium mining is a revolting process and destroys Eco systems. It doesn't do anywhere near as much damage as the oil industry, but it certainly isn't the way forward.

Lithium is also quite tricky to extract - it is common on the environment - sea water contains traces and most living things have some too, but extractable resources are scarce and as such it is a very limited resource, which for obvious reasons, needs to be used wisely.

The more funding and resources poured into lithium battery research, the less goes into research on extracting cheap clean hydrogen and setting up the infrastructure which will be required to transport it and to store it safely.

Personally, I would rather see governments legislating and funding hydrogen research rather than making meaningless noises about CO2 levels and how green their pointless congestion policies are. Sadly things are never that simple when politics are involved and oil and gas companies have as much power as they do.

 

[Tuthmes]

Hydrogen is the way foreward, but for some reason the industry wants to walk a different path. Unless they can develop a battery that can be recycled for almost 100%, lasts a week on normal consumption and speed, it's gonne fail one way or another.

Hydrogen engines make the same sound aswell. Which is important to car users and arguebly adds to savety.

Anyways here's our chance to clean atleast a big chunk of our daily polution. Yet all I've got is visions of scrapyards full of useless batteries.

 

[Ormorof]

you would still need a cheap, efficient, reliable way to produce hydrogen, at the moment the easiest way is from natural gas, which doesnt really solve the problem, any attempts to use electrolysis would require huge amounts of electricity, which would then face the same problems as an electric car - whats the point if we are burning oil or coal to make the electricity anyway?

hydrogen cells also use heavy metals in their production so its not a fool proof solution

hydrogen is a better way of powering a car and will allow cars to be used in their conventianal manner, but the technology is currently absurdly expensive (an electric car will set you back between €30-50k a hydrogen car between €300-500k) and will take decades to get to production standards while petrol gets more expensive

whereas electric cars are already in mass production, and with dozens of models launching in all shapes and sizes over the next 2-3 years

its not a perfect solution, but it is an alternative

 

[Tuthmes]

Well the point is that you make hydrogen from clean electricity. I know this would benefit electrical cars aswell, but the point is their batteries. Not sure about the electrolysis and how difficult it's to make, so perhaps you have a point.

What springs to mind is how much energy it would take to make a car go 100 miles on either two. 13 hours of recharging every day vs filling a tank up with hydrogen every week.

Also Electrical cars where expensive as hell in the beginning. The reason why hydrogen car still are is that nobody invested in them, because the industry choose a different path. Oddly enough you don't have to change a whole lot to drive a normal car on hydrogen, which would mean the industry only has to change a little in their production process.

Anyways it's probebly far more difficult then I make it sound. But I still don't like the alternative of having millions of car batteries rotting away somewhere in Afrika.

I'm off to read about electrolysis. It all seemed so simple at school.

 

[Ormorof]

the plan i believe for the companies making the electric vehicles is to recycle the batteries (though i admit i have not read any clear plans on what they will do with them) not dump them in Africa, but yes it is a legitimate worry (how often do things go to plan when budgets are cut? )

the actual energy converted into mechanical power is also better in Electric vehicles (88% of energy input is converted, it is around 15-20% for a standard petrol combustion engine)

a hydrogen ICE would be more efficient, but still suffer from many of the problems of a petrol ICE

Electrolysis is simple, but it requires a lot of energy to make it work to extract hydrogen from water