On 20/02/2024 18:19 wessie penned these words:
> what about the carbon footprint before the bike has left a factory compared
> to a car, amortised over the life of the vehicle?
>
> many people ignore this factor when rationalising about a new vehicle
> purchase, especially with an EV.

Why for most people bangernomics is probably the least bad choice, eke a few
thousands of miles out of something headed for the scrappie.

From what I've read the time for a low mileage EV to reach the point where it is
less damaging than the equivalent ICE is 20+ years. That's a pretty long time to
assume *the majority of a model* is going to be still around.
--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

On 2/21/2024 2:52 AM, YTC#1 wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 21:01, Turby wrote:
>>
>> Seriously. You're talking about thousands of pounds of raw materials,
> I think bikes are also thousands of pounds of raw material

What? My FJR weighs ~640lbs. My Dodge Ram weighs ~5000lbs.

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS & ST1100 (in memoriam)

On 21/02/2024 12:01, Turby wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 2:52 AM, YTC#1 wrote:
>> On 20/02/2024 21:01, Turby wrote:
>>>
>>> Seriously. You're talking about thousands of pounds of raw materials,
>> I think bikes are also thousands of pounds of raw material
>
> What? My FJR weighs ~640lbs. My Dodge Ram weighs ~5000lbs.
>
>
Bloody yanks.

ITHM £s :-)

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 21/02/2024 10:28, YTC#1 wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 19:30, wessie wrote:
>> I do have a gut feeling.
>
> We all have gut feelings :-)
>
> And sometimes they can lead us astray. Often why someone states X, I
> like to see if that is fact or maybe Y is the answer[1]

Agreed. Looking at as much evidence as possible *and* going back as far
as possible to original documents, and research, may be time consuming
but it is the only way to express a considered opinion!*

> For example the old adage "load pipes save lives"[2], countered with
> "and fucking piss people off" :-)
>
>>
>> Economy of scale might reduce the unit cost in cash terms but 4 car
>> wheels take a lot more metal and energy to mould than 2 flimsier bike
>
> being flimsier, do they require more repairs?
>
>> wheels. Then look at the volume of plastic in a car compared to a bike,
>> exterior and especially interior. A Ford Fiesta weighs over a tonne more
>> than my bike.
> And your bike is probaby better looking than a Fiesta.
>
> [1] Which people often mistake as me being argumentative for the sake of
> it.
> [2] But do they really?

Re [2] Loud pipes certainly make people move out the way! IME anyway.

I am not a fan of them but I have gone above and beyond to make the XV
quieter. It just won't** and I now believe it simply wants to out-trump
the HDs. So be it.

Chris
*I admit I haven't always practised what I preach.
**The final straw was when the exhaust burped out my last attempt at
creative welding and muffler construction, at speed on the A50.

--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote:
> On 19/02/2024 16:09, Turby wrote:
>> In almost 60 years of riding, and ~1/2 million miles in so many
>> different countries, the number of stupid things I've done on or around
>> motorcycles is minuscule.
>
> Not *completely* certain I can say the same.

+1

But even so, most of the stupid stuff is still a great memory (time
heals a lot).

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

On 20/02/2024 23:36, Turby wrote:
> On 2/20/2024 2:40 PM, PipL wrote:
>> On 20/02/2024 21:01, Turby wrote:
>>  > On 2/20/2024 2:19 AM, wessie wrote:>> what about the carbon
>> footprint before the bike has left a factory
>>  >> compared
>>  >> to a car, amortised over the life of the vehicle?
>>  >>
>>  >> many people ignore this factor when rationalising about a new vehicle
>>  >> purchase, especially with an EV.
>>
>> Up front carbon cost of an EV is high, but one voice at least, the
>> Argonne National Laboratory in the States, which one would hope has no
>> axe to grind either way, estimates somewhere around 15K miles to break
>> even for a mid-range EV on the US generator mix. One fascinating
>> figure they came up with is that EVs could theoretically break even at
>> around 80K miles, even if the electricity were entirely generated from
>> coal. This because they're massively more efficient than ICE vehicles.
>>
>> I'm still hoping that there's a future for hydrogen fuel cells, mind.
>> I've never liked batteries, which may seem odd coming from me.
>>
>
> I'd love to get an electric motorcycle, but AFAIK, there aren't any that
> work as tourers.
> I haven't seen any with panniers, either. And if I get
> one for local rides, I need to carry groceries, beach gear, and be
> able to lock up my helmet and jacket.

Energica do a sort of GS-style thing, but it's not a realistic tourer.
It does have panniers. My Eva has panniers too, but they're quite small
soft cases, though they can be expanded a bit. Expensive bike for a
shopping trolley.

>>
>> I'm probably in a minority, but my commute, in winter, is probably
>> quicker by car,
>
> Winter? What's that? (He says, from SoCal.)

Ha. Ha.

At least there's winter holidays abroad in the white stuff. Here in East
Blighty it's grey, windy, chilly and the roads are covered in muddy cack.

--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

On 21/02/2024 13:10, YTC#1 wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 12:01, Turby wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 2:52 AM, YTC#1 wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2024 21:01, Turby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Seriously. You're talking about thousands of pounds of raw materials,
>>> I think bikes are also thousands of pounds of raw material
>>
>> What? My FJR weighs ~640lbs. My Dodge Ram weighs ~5000lbs.
>>
>>
> Bloody yanks.
>
> ITHM £s :-)
>

Although,on reflection he may have meant weight. Bit then I would have
expected ton(ne)s

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

El Wed, 21 Feb 2024 19:51:06 +0000, PipL escribió:

> On 20/02/2024 23:36, Turby wrote:

>> Winter? What's that? (He says, from SoCal.)
>
> Ha. Ha.
>
> At least there's winter holidays abroad in the white stuff. Here in East
> Blighty it's grey, windy, chilly and the roads are covered in muddy
> cack.

Doesn't have to go abroad. It's a short drive to Nevada.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

On 22/02/2024 16:39, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> El Wed, 21 Feb 2024 19:51:06 +0000, PipL escribió:
>
>> On 20/02/2024 23:36, Turby wrote:
>
>>> Winter? What's that? (He says, from SoCal.)
>>
>> Ha. Ha.
>>
>> At least there's winter holidays abroad in the white stuff. Here in East
>> Blighty it's grey, windy, chilly and the roads are covered in muddy
>> cack.
>
>
> Doesn't have to go abroad. It's a short drive to Nevada.

I was going to post a comment about the size of the States, but if
Google Maps is accurate, not much more than a couple of hundred miles to
the lumpy bits.

And in other news, the moment I say that the car is quicker in winter,
we have Floods On The A14. So everyone cuts through Newmarket with
resulting queues. Just as well I took the Guzzi today.

--

--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

On 20/02/2024 22:40, PipL wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 21:01, Turby wrote:
> > On 2/20/2024 2:19 AM, wessie wrote:>> what about the carbon footprint
> before the bike has left a factory
> >> compared
> >> to a car, amortised over the life of the vehicle?
> >>
> >> many people ignore this factor when rationalising about a new vehicle
> >> purchase, especially with an EV.
>
> Up front carbon cost of an EV is high, but one voice at least, the
> Argonne National Laboratory in the States, which one would hope has no
> axe to grind either way, estimates somewhere around 15K miles to break
> even for a mid-range EV on the US generator mix. One fascinating figure
> they came up with is that EVs could theoretically break even at around
> 80K miles, even if the electricity were entirely generated from coal.
> This because they're massively more efficient than ICE vehicles.
>

EVs are not alone in this, but if you add the shipping cost of either
the car or components it can mount up. I'd like an EV and am even
looking around but I suspect I may never cover sufficient miles to get
the benefit. I suppose the next owner after me could reach the break
even point.

On 22/02/2024 10:38, YTC#1 wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 13:10, YTC#1 wrote:
>> On 21/02/2024 12:01, Turby wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 2:52 AM, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>> On 20/02/2024 21:01, Turby wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously. You're talking about thousands of pounds of raw materials,
>>>> I think bikes are also thousands of pounds of raw material
>>>
>>> What? My FJR weighs ~640lbs. My Dodge Ram weighs ~5000lbs.
>>>
>>>
>> Bloody yanks.
>>
>> ITHM £s :-)
>>
>
> Although,on reflection he may have meant weight. Bit then I would have
> expected ton(ne)s
>
It's hard to tell. Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking
about the weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of
pounds rather than tonnes.

Still it's not as obscure as weighing bells, which are recorded in
tonnes, quarters and stones.

On 21/02/2024 10:28, YTC#1 wrote:
>
> And sometimes they can lead us astray. Often why someone states X, I
> like to see if that is fact or maybe Y is the answer[1]
>
> [1] Which people often mistake as me being argumentative for the sake of
> it.

As opposed to all the other times that you are argumentative for the
sake of it?

On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking
> about the weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of
> pounds rather than tonnes.

And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability to
use the metric system.

On 23/02/2024 15:54, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking about the
>> weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of pounds
>> rather than tonnes.
>
> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability to
> use the metric system.

While it seems there are still many people in the UK who need a
calculator to convert between (eg) millimeters, centimeters and meters,
I am alarmed to suspect not many people anywhere have grasped the metric
system!
<exasperated mode ON>
If you're going to use a calculator anyway, the metric system is
somewhat 'devalued'.
<em OFF>

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

On 23/02/2024 10:20, Tim wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 22:40, PipL wrote:
>> Up front carbon cost of an EV is high, but one voice at least, the
>> Argonne National Laboratory in the States, which one would hope has no
>> axe to grind either way, estimates somewhere around 15K miles to break
>> even for a mid-range EV on the US generator mix. One fascinating
>> figure they came up with is that EVs could theoretically break even at
>> around 80K miles, even if the electricity were entirely generated from
>> coal. This because they're massively more efficient than ICE vehicles.
>>
>
> EVs are not alone in this,
What other equivalent mid-range car is there, apart from hydrogen?
>but if you add the shipping cost of either
> the car or components it can mount up.

Which I assume are part of the already-calculated carbon footprint, but
even
if not, it's the same for any other vehicle.

I'd like an EV and am even
> looking around but I suspect I may never cover sufficient miles to get
> the benefit. I suppose the next owner after me could reach the break
> even point.

For me, a car cannot entirely replace ICE yet, so I'd need another vehicle
for longer journeys or towing.

--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

On 2/23/2024 7:54 AM, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking about the
>> weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of pounds
>> rather than tonnes.
>
> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability to
> use the metric system.

Oh, but we do use the metric system. We just like to use the, um,
"Imperial" system to amuse you Brits.

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS & ST1100 (in memoriam)

On 23/02/2024 19:07, PipL wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 10:20, Tim wrote:
>> On 20/02/2024 22:40, PipL wrote:
>>> Up front carbon cost of an EV is high, but one voice at least, the
>>> Argonne National Laboratory in the States, which one would hope has
>>> no axe to grind either way, estimates somewhere around 15K miles to
>>> break even for a mid-range EV on the US generator mix. One
>>> fascinating figure they came up with is that EVs could theoretically
>>> break even at around 80K miles, even if the electricity were entirely
>>> generated from coal. This because they're massively more efficient
>>> than ICE vehicles.
>>>
>>
>> EVs are not alone in this,
> What other equivalent mid-range car is there, apart from hydrogen?
>> but if you add the shipping cost of either the car or components it
>> can mount up.
>
> Which I assume are part of the already-calculated carbon footprint, but
> even
> if not, it's the same for any other vehicle.
>
I'm not sure that it is the same. Some of the raw materials are specific
to certain countries (until/unless new resources are detected) and some
of the components are also sourced from a restricted list of countries.

I spent some time at the Opel (GM Europe) plant data modelling new
vehicles. I had access to the huge data of components from 1941 onwards
and it was interesting to see just how diverse some parts were (e.g.
ignition coils) but other parts you had the choice of two, one in Europe
and the other in Japan. At any time the production line could be
provisioned from just one source due to variance in the supply chain.

On 23/02/2024 20:47, Turby wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 7:54 AM, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking about the
>>> weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of pounds
>>> rather than tonnes.
>>
>> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability
>> to use the metric system.
>
> Oh, but we do use the metric system. We just like to use the, um,
> "Imperial" system to amuse you Brits.
>
I watched the film Hidden Figures yesterday. It was interesting to see
that the calculations worked on a chalkboard were in metric but there
was a lot of Imperial used in the dialogue.

On 23/02/2024 15:54, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking about the
>> weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of pounds
>> rather than tonnes.
>
> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability to
> use the metric system.

True, and not just them, e.g. Gimli Glider.

On 23/02/2024 20:47, Turby wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 7:54 AM, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking about the
>>> weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of pounds
>>> rather than tonnes.
>>
>> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability
>> to use the metric system.
>
> Oh, but we do use the metric system. We just like to use the, um,
> "Imperial" system to amuse you Brits.
<https://xkcd.com/2888/>

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On 24/02/2024 10:28, Tim wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 19:07, PipL wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 10:20, Tim wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2024 22:40, PipL wrote:
>>>> Up front carbon cost of an EV is high, but one voice at least, the
>>>> Argonne National Laboratory in the States, which one would hope has
>>>> no axe to grind either way, estimates somewhere around 15K miles to
>>>> break even for a mid-range EV on the US generator mix. One
>>>> fascinating figure they came up with is that EVs could theoretically
>>>> break even at around 80K miles, even if the electricity were
>>>> entirely generated from coal. This because they're massively more
>>>> efficient than ICE vehicles.
>>>>
>>>
>>> EVs are not alone in this,
>> What other equivalent mid-range car is there, apart from hydrogen?
>>> but if you add the shipping cost of either the car or components it
>>> can mount up.
>>
>> Which I assume are part of the already-calculated carbon footprint,
>> but even
>> if not, it's the same for any other vehicle.
>>
> I'm not sure that it is the same. Some of the raw materials are specific
> to certain countries (until/unless new resources are detected) and some
> of the components are also sourced from a restricted list of countries.

Even so, ultimately the material for any vehicle has to be shipped part
way round the planet, yes? Are these other sources for EVs really more
remote? There will be lorry or rail transport to a local processor, then
port or (possibly) airport, then global shipping, then from the port via
road or rail to the factory, possibly via a hub. I guess a mine deep
inside say, Africa or Brazil, might need longer distance transport.

Maybe lithium refining is more likely to be done remote from the mine,
so you're shifting a large mass of ore?

--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

On 24/02/2024 10:57, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 20:47, Turby wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 7:54 AM, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>>>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking about the
>>>> weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of pounds
>>>> rather than tonnes.
>>>
>>> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability
>>> to use the metric system.
>>
>> Oh, but we do use the metric system. We just like to use the, um,
>> "Imperial" system to amuse you Brits.
> <https://xkcd.com/2888/>
>

Haha. Still probably visible to the SPLAT team though.

--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

On 24/02/2024 11:04, PipL wrote:
> On 24/02/2024 10:28, Tim wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 19:07, PipL wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2024 10:20, Tim wrote:
>>>> On 20/02/2024 22:40, PipL wrote:
>>>>> Up front carbon cost of an EV is high, but one voice at least, the
>>>>> Argonne National Laboratory in the States, which one would hope has
>>>>> no axe to grind either way, estimates somewhere around 15K miles to
>>>>> break even for a mid-range EV on the US generator mix. One
>>>>> fascinating figure they came up with is that EVs could
>>>>> theoretically break even at around 80K miles, even if the
>>>>> electricity were entirely generated from coal. This because they're
>>>>> massively more efficient than ICE vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> EVs are not alone in this,
>>> What other equivalent mid-range car is there, apart from hydrogen?
>>>> but if you add the shipping cost of either the car or components it
>>>> can mount up.
>>>
>>> Which I assume are part of the already-calculated carbon footprint,
>>> but even
>>> if not, it's the same for any other vehicle.
>>>
>> I'm not sure that it is the same. Some of the raw materials are
>> specific to certain countries (until/unless new resources are
>> detected) and some of the components are also sourced from a
>> restricted list of countries.
>
> Even so, ultimately the material for any vehicle has to be shipped part
> way round the planet, yes? Are these other sources for EVs really more
> remote? There will be lorry or rail transport to a local processor, then
> port or (possibly) airport, then global shipping, then from the port via
> road or rail to the factory, possibly via a hub. I guess a mine deep
> inside say, Africa or Brazil, might need longer distance transport.
>
> Maybe lithium refining is more likely to be done remote from the mine,
> so you're shifting a large mass of ore?
>
>
The main issue currently with Lithium is the manufacture of the
lithium-ion battery. According to Wikipedia 75 percent of battery
production and "most" refining of the ores takes place in China. As it
currently stands it's not possible to make an lithium based EV with a
lower carbon supply chain burden. Other power trains can be made closer
to the market.

With a bit of luck one or other of the proposed alternatives to lithium
batteries will prove fruitful.

On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Tim wrote:
>
>>
> The main issue currently with Lithium is the manufacture of the
> lithium-ion battery. According to Wikipedia 75 percent of battery
> production and "most" refining of the ores takes place in China. As it
> currently stands it's not possible to make an lithium based EV with a
> lower carbon supply chain burden. Other power trains can be made closer
> to the market.
>
> With a bit of luck one or other of the proposed alternatives to lithium
> batteries will prove fruitful.

FWIW, one of the largest lithium deposits in the world is next to the
Salton Sea, in Southern California near Arizona. It will probably
eliminate our dependence on China for lithium.

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS & ST1100 (in memoriam)

On Feb 23, 2024 at 10:54:31 AM EST, "Mike Fleming" <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking
>> about the weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of
>> pounds rather than tonnes.
>
> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability to
> use the metric system.

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqng9hbq2ps761.png