Author Topic: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC  (Read 3757 times)

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #50 on: July 13, 2019, 12:28:25 am »
Inductive charging means you have a bloody great big transformer. Which is also a bloody great big radio transmitter (tho on a very very very low frequency, and with really shit efficiency). This is going to cause issues for pacemakers, and anything magnetic that goes in range (credit card mag strip?).

Field strength follows an inverse-cube law, thobut, so it's probably no worse than getting up close and personal with a conventional large transformer or motor, in that respect.  There hasn't been a spate of laptop hard drives (yes, yes, I know) being erased by being placed on the floor of electric trains or anything.

Pacemakers will have been deliberately engineered to tolerate all sorts of electro-magnetic abuse (starter for 10: being repeatedly zapped by a defibrillator must surely be part of the spec), so I'd be reasonably confident about that.  It's the internet-of-shit problems that their users should be worrying about...


Quote
The RF interference is also going to be a fun one to deal with.

That might be a bit more fun, but it's not like motor vehicles[1] don't have a long history of RF obnoxiousness...


Quote
All in all, a nice idea, but not really going to be useful in the long term, and perhaps the efforts going into it could be better spent elsewhere...

It's not a zero-sum game, though.  Much like hydrogen fuel cells, it's something that's technically feasible, and is being developed into practical products.  I agree that battery tech will render it mostly irrelevant in the longer term, but it might find a niche or two where it makes sense, and that's all good.


[1] And I'm compelled to include the notorious Class 220/221 DMUs in that.  It's a good thing they're on rails, because you can forget about using a GPS receiver when there's one of those around.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #51 on: July 13, 2019, 10:12:39 am »
I suspect it's mostly going to end up in bus stops and taxi ranks.
There are one or two bus routes in Bristol with inductive charging at the terminal stops. Whether they'll stay in use longer than the "poo buses" (methane burners) before them remains to be seen.

Round these parts at the end of route for some buses, there is a setup where the bus drives into a parking space, a pantograph springs up, power engages, the driver gets out, goes to exchange coffees, and have a break, then gets back in, retracts the pantograph, and resumes their shift. Charging rate is pretty damn high, and poses less risk than inductive charging.
I think you can see why that idea wouldn't work in Britain. Drivers getting out of their buses and having coffees on shift?
sideways bounding monkey lounging under fruit tree

Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #52 on: July 13, 2019, 10:40:41 am »
Electric cars just move the pollution somewhere else. And what about the resources used in making them?

It seems some people like them as they can carry on with their lifestyle and feel better about it.

The UK has been car-centric from at least the 50s and 60s, that's 2 generations. And things are not going to change overnight if the aim is to reduce travel by private motor vehicles. Even travelling by public transport should be reduced anyway.

The "rich" world use up vastly more energy and materials than the less developed, I don't see people in the rich countries willingly give up their "luxuries".

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #53 on: July 13, 2019, 11:09:28 am »
Electric cars just move the pollution somewhere else. And what about the resources used in making them?

Move it and change it. The current grid balance in the UK is such that the generated electricity that is then used to power your car is generated in a cleaner way than if you just poured liquid dinosaurs in the back. (at the time of writing, 17% Nuclear, 44% Gas turbine, 8% wind, 0% domestic coal). What is more that generation is done outside the city in areas with lower populations, meaning fewer people are exposed to the pollution. Further, because of the fixed location it is possible to put in particulate matter filters, and eventually Carbon capture.

Your typical electric car is no more environmentally unfriendly the moment it rolls off the production line, than a similar sized dinosaur burner. Both have used lots of metal and plastics, materials that contain an awful lot of embodied energy. But with a typical grid UK grid mix, within 1-2 years of average use, the car has a lower CO2 footprint than that of the equivalent dinosaur burner, and it just improves from there. The average age for a private car is 12 years old, so for 10 years that car is better for the environment.

One area where the emissions of an electric vehicle are greater than those of ICE vehicle, is in tyre particulate. Electric cars have more torque, and wear their tyres faster, when a tyre is worn, micro plastics from the wheels go into the environment. The brake dust thing is a bit of a red herring as with regen braking, most electric cars don't brake as much as ICE vehicles. But the tyre emissions thing is still real.

For more info on the subject, I recommend this podcast from Helen Czerski over at Fullycharged: https://fullycharged.show/podcasts/podcast-24/

I was in the audience for the recording, and it was a really interesting discussion. Oh, and don't think your bike is any better here, you're still dumping tyre particulate, you're just doing it at a slightly lower scale. (weigh your tyres when new, and when you replace them).

Quote

It seems some people like them as they can carry on with their lifestyle and feel better about it.

If someone is going to buy a new car, no matter what, then it is better that they buy an electric one. The argument of if they should buy a new car, or use an existing vehicle longer is one that could go on for ages. But, predicated on the "A car I must have" then it's better that it's electric.

Quote
The UK has been car-centric from at least the 50s and 60s, that's 2 generations. And things are not going to change overnight if the aim is to reduce travel by private motor vehicles. Even travelling by public transport should be reduced anyway.

This is the second time I've seen someone suggesting reducing public transport in discussions in a cycling context today. I find this worrying. By far the biggest force for getting people out of cars, is viable public transport. While many of us will commute to work by bike and other active travel, in the depths of winter, people will want the relative dryness of the bus or train. Public transport integrated with the cycle network is the solution here. But for that to work, public transport needs to be run with the aim of transporting the public, not making money.

Quote
The "rich" world use up vastly more energy and materials than the less developed, I don't see people in the rich countries willingly give up their "luxuries".

The willinglyness of it is going to become a lot more forced in the not to distant future. But yes, we have issues with the inevitable selfishness of humans.

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

fd3

Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #54 on: July 13, 2019, 11:11:36 am »
I still reckon that changing the EV design so that the charge cable is retracted from the vehicle and situated where it can e protected from passers by + charging points in the road would solve the problem more efficiently and faster than inductive charging.

hubner, I was in agreement with you until I had a discussion about PV panels and EVs on this forum.  As the FF burned in power stations use a steam turbine as opposed to pistons the efficiency of a Power Plant is about 2x that of a petrol engine.  So EVs actually use the same or less FF to run than petrol/diesel engines (not taking into account that some of their electricity will come from renewables and that natural gas pollutes less than diesel/petrol).

If you want to reduce car use, you need to make more roads taxi/bus/bike only, close more major roads in cities and maybe pass laws that only allow you to use your car every other day (based on your number plate being odd or even numbered).  Most of these sort of changes will be more practicable on a local rather than national level - e.g. the govt won't pass laws to stop use of cars in city centre, but local govts can, as their voters will be the people living in the city centre, not those commuting in by car (this is what happened in Paris).
[/I could be wrong]

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #55 on: July 13, 2019, 11:25:04 am »
Quote
The UK has been car-centric from at least the 50s and 60s, that's 2 generations. And things are not going to change overnight if the aim is to reduce travel by private motor vehicles. Even travelling by public transport should be reduced anyway.

This is the second time I've seen someone suggesting reducing public transport in discussions in a cycling context today. I find this worrying. By far the biggest force for getting people out of cars, is viable public transport. While many of us will commute to work by bike and other active travel, in the depths of winter, people will want the relative dryness of the bus or train. Public transport integrated with the cycle network is the solution here. But for that to work, public transport needs to be run with the aim of transporting the public, not making money.
I think the idea is that we need to reduce travel full stop by all modes.
sideways bounding monkey lounging under fruit tree

Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #56 on: July 13, 2019, 11:54:22 am »
Public transport is hugely expensive and always has a finite capacity. It's much cheaper to provide cycle infrastructure to create capacity for moving people than it is to build new public transport. And if you can persuade existing public transport users onto bikes (or to stay at home) then you create capacity for car drivers to switch.

TfL's policy until very recently was "we'll build more lines and run more trains and buses" to keep up with demand, but in the last few years they've come round to the idea of how unaffordable that is.

So there's a good argument for not trying to solve the transport problem solely with public transport, but I don't think there's much pressing need to reduce existing public transport usage/provision.

Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #57 on: July 13, 2019, 02:14:08 pm »
My MSc dissertation is about preventing automobile dependency in economic development.

The problem is that 'governance solutions' don't make much odds to the fundamental patterns of life we have made for ourselves. We have set ourselves workplaces, shops, schools and holiday destinations that are ages away because for the past 60-70 years you are expected to have aspired to own and operate a car. It isn't enough to just reform infrastructure if your end destination is always going to be in a place you were always expected to drive to (or be driven to).

My MSc is more about preventing this from happening in the first place than retroactively applying a cure. But I think basically the best hope is a cultural rejection of the car trap, and the disassociation of cars with 'freedom' and 'luxury', moreso recognition of what they really are: expensive, dangerous death cages that ruin the well-being of drivers, passengers and bystanders/other road users alike. The Dutch didn't get what they have now by the government imposing a top dow governance change, they have it because of an energetic social movement (stop de kindermoord) which indeed actually radicalised and broke the law a la the suffragettes to get their way https://youtu.be/XuBdf9jYj7o.

And on the carrot side, big sums and energy on making cycling, handcycling, and transit affordable and attractive. I think this could also include putting health warnings on cars and car products to de- glamourise driving. I would really love 'plain packaging' for cars, that'd be rad.

I’m coming late to the party I’m afraid. However, a few observations:
I don’t think that we can conflate the “ aspiration “ to own a car with car usage. Belgium has a very high cars/person, but a very low mileage/ car. There are times when someone might need/want a car, but it doesn’t mean that you actually use it very much. Many leisure activities, even cycle racing, would be next to impossible without a car, but the car could then stand all week and have a very limited environmental impact.
The issue isn’t really the number of cars, it’s the distance travelled by them. Rather than car ownership being “ aspirational” UK life for many make a car an essential. A particular driver for this is the cost of housing in cities, together with the concentration of employment within cities. I live about 25 miles from Birmingham, and a large percentage of housing in this area is owned by Birmingham commuters. If affordable and attractive housing was available nearer people’s work things would change, but big developers want easy, greenfield sites. Decent and easily accessible public transport would help, but again; the “ big” money wants London-centric city to city trains, not services for local commuters. There are many vested interests in keeping city  property prices high ( even if that housing is empty as in parts of London). In Belgium, far more people work near home - a cycle ride away for a non- enthusiast cyclist. In the UK we could move the housing, or move the workplace, but there’s a lot of big money involved

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #58 on: July 13, 2019, 02:24:10 pm »
The issue isn’t really the number of cars, it’s the distance travelled by them.

Living in Birmingham, I disagree.  The city would be unimaginably more pleasant if people weren't squeezing their cars through streets lined with parked cars in order to travel a 3 mile round trip.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #59 on: July 13, 2019, 02:50:54 pm »
The issue isn’t really the number of cars, it’s the distance travelled by them.

Living in Birmingham, I disagree.  The city would be unimaginably more pleasant if people weren't squeezing their cars through streets lined with parked cars in order to travel a 3 mile round trip.
I'm curious as to how long a 3 mile round car trip in Brum would take.
3 miles is ~ an hour of walking for an averagely fit individual.
And, if walking, there's obvs no need to drive around to find a parking space.

Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #60 on: July 13, 2019, 02:55:34 pm »
One area where the emissions of an electric vehicle are greater than those of ICE vehicle, is in tyre particulate. Electric cars have more torque, and wear their tyres faster, when a tyre is worn, micro plastics from the wheels go into the environment. The brake dust thing is a bit of a red herring as with regen braking, most electric cars don't brake as much as ICE vehicles. But the tyre emissions thing is still real.

For more info on the subject, I recommend this podcast from Helen Czerski over at Fullycharged: https://fullycharged.show/podcasts/podcast-24/

Quote

The thing is that while electric cars may have more torque (or at least, more torque from zero revs), the driver also has much better control over how the torque is deployed. I'd like to see some experimental evidence of the different wear rates. The tyres on my Zoe have lasted much longer than the tyres on my Multipla did (the cars weigh about the same, but the Zoe tyres are narrower and run higher pressure). I'm also curious about what conditions cause more tyre wear - motorway miles, stop start driving, fast and twisty roads?

I agree with Paul. Fundamentally, society needs to be re-imagined to make walking/cycling/public transport viable for the majority of people. Everything else is just fiddling around the edges. However, vested interest mean that we are travelling as fast as possible in the opposite direction - just look at the Oxford Cambridge Expressway plans where they want to build 1 million houses alongside a giant road that can take the people in these houses to their jobs in the cities (that have horrific traffic and pollution problems already).

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #61 on: July 13, 2019, 03:17:41 pm »
yebbut, too late as always, they are also puting in an Oxford-Cambridge rail link, finally.

In terms of electric cars, range arguments aside.  I've not seen a life cycle analysis, but given the embodied carbon in my 16YO Disco 2, assuming similar for a new EV or hybrid, there would need to be a very large delta in operational emissions to offset/outweigh the impact of buying a new car vs the 3000miles a year I do in a FF burner, i.e. retiring XX teCO2e, just to use another XXte CO2e to build a car, but with YY-ZZte CO2e per year.  XX/(YY-ZZ) in years would need to exceed the lifespan of the car to make it worthwhile. 

The only real argument that I see for mass retirement of FF burners is a local air quality argument, which is a city issue far more than the ruralshires I inhabit.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #62 on: July 13, 2019, 03:18:42 pm »
Cars definitely cause problems when parked. They dominate streets physically and mentally. By narrowing the available space, they make street use for traffic difficult and confrontational (eg when two drivers compete for one vehicle's worth of space) and non-traffic uses virtually impossible. By creating a wall of metal and glass, they inhibit communication. They also block vision, which is an obvious traffic danger. And even when not parked on the pavement, they make walking along the pavement more difficult due to overhanging mirrors, randomly opened doors and having to squeeze through gaps on and off the kerb when you want to get to the other side. They also mean other large stuff, such as wheelie bins, clutters up the pavement because it can't be left on the carriageway itself.
sideways bounding monkey lounging under fruit tree

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #63 on: July 13, 2019, 03:24:49 pm »
In terms of electric cars, range arguments aside.  I've not seen a life cycle analysis, but given the embodied carbon in my 16YO Disco 2, assuming similar for a new EV or hybrid, there would need to be a very large delta in operational emissions to offset/outweigh the impact of buying a new car vs the 3000miles a year I do in a FF burner, i.e. retiring XX teCO2e, just to use another XXte CO2e to build a car, but with YY-ZZte CO2e per year.  XX/(YY-ZZ) in years would need to exceed the lifespan of the car to make it worthwhile.

It's academic:  Nobody's building electric cars (read: the supply chains can't gear up) fast enough to replace the existing ICE fleet before their natural end-of-life, anyway.  By the time all new cars *can* be electric, the infrastructure issues will have been solved, and nobody (bar a few enthusiasts and very specialist applications) will want an ICE vehicle, anyway.


Quote
The only real argument that I see for mass retirement of FF burners is a local air quality argument, which is a city issue far more than the ruralshires I inhabit.

To me it's a pretty compelling argument: Electric cars kill fewer people than ICE cars.  The only thing better is fewer cars.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #64 on: July 13, 2019, 03:51:40 pm »
Agreed, fewer cars is better, but fewer cars = better infrastructure, and we don't have that.  Cities (some already) can do this easy enough, but ruralshire makes it cost-prohibitive as private enterprise and a vote loser as public enterprise.  There is a massive political swing needed to accept the cost to the public of universal provision of more sustainable travel for all, whether decent cycle lanes, electric busses or what.  The two bus a day in my village, which don't let London commuters get to the station in time speaks volumes about priorities.

As for EVs killing fewer people, that's somewhat emotive and predicated solely on local air quality issues, which is purely a city issue.  It makes no difference to me whether the car running me off the road in rural Cambs is electric or dinofuelled.  What do you consider "natural end of life" for a car? Mine is 16 years old, only has 80k miles on it and if looked after will do at least the same again i.e. go past the ban on sales of new ICE vehicles.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #65 on: July 13, 2019, 04:05:25 pm »
In terms of electric cars, range arguments aside.  I've not seen a life cycle analysis, but given the embodied carbon in my 16YO Disco 2, assuming similar for a new EV or hybrid, there would need to be a very large delta in operational emissions to offset/outweigh the impact of buying a new car vs the 3000miles a year I do in a FF burner, i.e. retiring XX teCO2e, just to use another XXte CO2e to build a car, but with YY-ZZte CO2e per year.  XX/(YY-ZZ) in years would need to exceed the lifespan of the car to make it worthwhile.

We're still at the stage with electric cars where each one sold is as much about demonstrating demand and making them socially acceptable - which has long term snowball effects on CO2 emissions - than about the CO2 emissions of that particular car.

Quote
The only real argument that I see for mass retirement of FF burners is a local air quality argument, which is a city issue far more than the ruralshires I inhabit.

There's shit air quality much more places than big cities. Anywhere there's more than a few cars really.

(Or in my experience, more than zero old diesel Discos)

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2019, 04:38:32 pm »
Agreed, fewer cars is better, but fewer cars = better infrastructure, and we don't have that.  Cities (some already) can do this easy enough, but ruralshire makes it cost-prohibitive as private enterprise and a vote loser as public enterprise.  There is a massive political swing needed to accept the cost to the public of universal provision of more sustainable travel for all, whether decent cycle lanes, electric busses or what.  The two bus a day in my village, which don't let London commuters get to the station in time speaks volumes about priorities.
If by infrastructure you mean cycle infrastructure, then fewer cars is a win-win-win: it increases the demand as some of those car users (passengers as well as drivers) start cycling and walking, it releases funds from provision of motor-specific infrastructure due to reduced demand, and it reduces the requirement for specific infrastructure as less motorised traffic means people are less scared and it's easier and more pleasant to cycle and walk on the existing infrastructure, ie roads.

If you're thinking of public transport infrastructure, again fewer cars means buses get through towns a bit easier and find it easier to get to their correct stops (because it's less likely someone's parked in the way). And the same economic arguments for cycling apply to bus and rail infrastructure. Not to mention that even high-speed rail is way cheaper than an equivalent distance of motorway.

The political problems of course remain and we're an awful long way from any of this.
sideways bounding monkey lounging under fruit tree

fd3

Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2019, 05:37:59 pm »
Could you swap out the motor, electric for FF?
[/I could be wrong]

Porkins

  • Formerly Nick H. And a long time ago etc, Eurostar
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #68 on: July 13, 2019, 05:40:44 pm »
Someone ought to fiddle with the cabin-motorcycle format to make a light, narrow car which seats 2 people in tandem. Give it 4 wheels, like those leaning trikes but with 2 wheels and the leaning gubbins at both ends.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #69 on: July 13, 2019, 06:28:04 pm »
Sounds like a Renault Twizy
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #70 on: July 13, 2019, 07:30:19 pm »
When my motorcycle had a warranty issue, I decided to get the bus to collect it once it was fixed. Roughly a 5 mile trip within Bristol.

Executive summary: should have got an Uber.

Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #71 on: July 13, 2019, 07:37:35 pm »
I suspect it's mostly going to end up in bus stops and taxi ranks.

For Taxi ranks, I think the utility is minimal. Battery vehicles with 300+km ranges are the becoming the norm, so the need to recharge during a shift is not going to be that high, esp given the usual utilisation of a taxi.


A lot of taxis are driven close to round the clock, by multiple drivers. True, they spend much of the day on short trips, but need to be able to go a good fraction of 300km round trip when the passenger asks for it. Having to turn down a fare because they haven’t the charge will put them right off electric, I’d have thought. Putting charging in busy ranks (I’m picturing the taxi queues at Brighton station) would also cut the need to go out of the way for fuel. So, I can see it being popular with cab companies and drivers.

I don’t have an electric car (second hand was still way too expensive compared to our needs when we last changed car) so speaking from ignorance here but, how fiddly and/or fragile is the changing connector? We tend to be mechanically minded, but is inductive charging a solution for the large swathe of people that aren’t? (As well as the scrote issue.)

On the general reducing car use issue, in a rural situation that feels like it needs better short range public transport and somewhere to go other than the nearest big town. I’m lucky enough to work in an industry where remote work is doable - but I’d still want human contact if I went full-time remote.

Also, completely agree about addressing the desirability of cars. I’m reminded of someone I know that lives in a decent sized village who got a little 4wd thing because they wanted something that “looks more country”. (Actual need for off roadage was zero.)

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #72 on: July 13, 2019, 07:41:08 pm »
I think the charging connectors are pretty solid. There is no issue with robustness in my view. They're way more solid than a typical 13A plug, and require much less insertion/removal force.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #73 on: July 13, 2019, 08:12:27 pm »
Agreed, fewer cars is better, but fewer cars = better infrastructure, and we don't have that.  Cities (some already) can do this easy enough, but ruralshire makes it cost-prohibitive as private enterprise and a vote loser as public enterprise.  There is a massive political swing needed to accept the cost to the public of universal provision of more sustainable travel for all, whether decent cycle lanes, electric busses or what.  The two bus a day in my village, which don't let London commuters get to the station in time speaks volumes about priorities.
If by infrastructure you mean cycle infrastructure, then fewer cars is a win-win-win: it increases the demand as some of those car users (passengers as well as drivers) start cycling and walking, it releases funds from provision of motor-specific infrastructure due to reduced demand, and it reduces the requirement for specific infrastructure as less motorised traffic means people are less scared and it's easier and more pleasant to cycle and walk on the existing infrastructure, ie roads.

If you're thinking of public transport infrastructure, again fewer cars means buses get through towns a bit easier and find it easier to get to their correct stops (because it's less likely someone's parked in the way). And the same economic arguments for cycling apply to bus and rail infrastructure. Not to mention that even high-speed rail is way cheaper than an equivalent distance of motorway.

The political problems of course remain and we're an awful long way from any of this.

I'm talking public transport and cycling infrastructure i.e. car replacements.  Remember, not everywhere is a city.  It's not always a case of walking a few streets to a bus stop, and fewer cars allowing buse throught more easily where I live it could be walking to the next village. 
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Electric cars won't save the planet article on BBC
« Reply #74 on: July 13, 2019, 08:14:54 pm »
In terms of electric cars, range arguments aside.  I've not seen a life cycle analysis, but given the embodied carbon in my 16YO Disco 2, assuming similar for a new EV or hybrid, there would need to be a very large delta in operational emissions to offset/outweigh the impact of buying a new car vs the 3000miles a year I do in a FF burner, i.e. retiring XX teCO2e, just to use another XXte CO2e to build a car, but with YY-ZZte CO2e per year.  XX/(YY-ZZ) in years would need to exceed the lifespan of the car to make it worthwhile.

We're still at the stage with electric cars where each one sold is as much about demonstrating demand and making them socially acceptable - which has long term snowball effects on CO2 emissions - than about the CO2 emissions of that particular car.

Quote
The only real argument that I see for mass retirement of FF burners is a local air quality argument, which is a city issue far more than the ruralshires I inhabit.

There's shit air quality much more places than big cities. Anywhere there's more than a few cars really.

(Or in my experience, more than zero old diesel Discos)

But the cause of more air quality issues in places like where I am is not transport related at all, it's agriculture related methane and ammonia amongst others.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens