Green number plates

Raymond

likes to play with old motorbikes
Top Contributor
XS650.com Supporter
Messages
3,381
Reaction score
17,610
Points
513
Location
Scottish Borders
Today I saw a parked car with a green segment at one end of the number plate - best picture I could find in a hurry:

green.jpg



So naturally, I thought, Hello what's that about then? I immediately suspected that it might be an electric car? And the purpose of the green segment - to increase the natural feeling of smugness that goes with ownership and use of a Zero Emissions Vehicle?

Walked round the back of the car - Peugeot E208 GT.

Thirty seconds on that internet confirmed my suspicions. I learned that green number plates 'have been introduced to raise awareness of zero emissions cars on our roads and as they are easily identified it means that local authorities can offer incentives to EV drivers such as access to bus lanes, free entry into zero-emissions zones and cheaper parking.'

Now by all means call me a old sceptic - just don't lean too heavily into old - but we all know there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and by the same token there ain't no such thing as a Zero Emissions Vehicle.

Have not been able to get very far, but it is quite clear that there is a lot of embedded CO2 from the manufacture of the vehicle, and it would appear that the embedded CO2 is in fact a great deal higher with an electric car than its petrol or diesel equivalent. 'Ah yes,' says the possessor of the Green number plate, 'but consider that when I go for a drive, there are no CO2 emissions and no other nasty, noxious emissions from a nasty fossil fuel engine!'

One estimate I've seen is that the electric car would repay that higher embedded CO2 after about 70,000 miles, by which time that battery is likely to need replacement. Even then the payback comes only if the electricity used was produced with net zero CO2 emissions (and that's a debate for another day).

When you replace the battery, the car's embedded CO2 shoots way back up again. Because apparently, the much higher embedded environmental cost of the electric car is largely due to the battery.

The phrase now is Lifecycle Emissions from Cars. But I haven't been able to find any useful, short-hand conclusions about the comparative Lifecycle Emissions for electric cars versus petrol or diesel. And one complicating factor is bound to be the disposal or recycling of that battery. And there are no clear unbiased data on how much noxious emissions are involved in the production and disposal of electric car battery packs.

All I know is - call me an intolerant old sceptic - that I will probably nurse an entirely unjustified grudge towards the drivers of cars with green number plates.

Does anyone who actually knows anything about this stuff feel like adding some useful perspective?
 
Last edited:
Today I saw a parked car with a green segment at one end - best picture I could find in a hurry:

View attachment 202531


So naturally, I thought, Hello what's that about then? I immediately suspected that it might be an electric car? And the purpose of the green segment - to increase the natural feeling of smugness that goes with ownership and use of a Zero Emissions Vehicle?

Walked round the back of the car - Peugeot E208 GT.

Thirty seconds on that internet confirmed my suspicions. I learned that green number plates 'have been introduced to raise awareness of zero emissions cars on our roads and as they are easily identified it means that local authorities can offer incentives to EV drivers such as access to bus lanes, free entry into zero-emissions zones and cheaper parking.'

Now by all means call me a old sceptic - just don't lean too heavily into old - but we all know there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and by the same token there ain't no such thing as a Zero Emissions Vehicle.

Have not been able to get very far, but it is quite clear that there is a lot of embedded CO2 from the manufacture of the vehicle, and it would appear that the embedded CO2 is in fact a great deal higher with an electric car than its petrol or diesel equivalent. 'Ah yes,' says the possessor of the Green number plate, 'but consider that when I go for a drive, there are no CO2 emissions and no other nasty, noxious emissions from a nasty fossil fuel engine!'

One estimate I've seen is that the electric car would repay that higher embedded CO2 after about 70,000 miles, by which time that battery is likely to need replacement. Even then the payback comes only if the electricity used was produced with net zero CO2 emissions (and that's a debate for another day).

When you replace the battery, the car's embedded CO2 shoots way back up again. Because apparently, the much higher embedded environmental cost of the electric car is largely due to the battery.

The phrase now is Lifecycle Emissions from Cars. But I haven't been able to find any useful, short-hand conclusions about the comparative Lifecycle Emissions for electric cars versus petrol or diesel. And one complicating factor is bound to be the disposal or recycling of that battery. And there are no clear unbiased data on how much noxious emissions are involved in the production and disposal of electric car battery packs.

All I know is - call me an intolerant old sceptic - that I will probably nurse an entirely unjustified grudge towards the drivers of cars with green number plates.

Does anyone who actually knows anything about this stuff feel like adding some useful perspective?

Nice observation Raymond.
As Clarkson has often said, electric car building can cost the environment more than a full fat V8 petrol car build.
Be nice if someone scientific could tell us all the truth.
 
I don't know anything about this .. And I probably newer will Bother to do the read up.
Not long ago I read an article in a German Newspaper ( Die Zeit )
800 000 000 people in this world is starving about the same Number are eating themselves to the grave as the saying goes
" Suicide with Knife and Fork "
What I fail to understand who is going to do that .Telling those 800 millions You cant use Coal You cant use Petrol it destroys my environment
Or for that matter Brazil You cannot cut down the Rain Forrest. ..Because My Oxygen will cease to exist.
Why would the starving man or the land owner in Brazil ...Care a Flying Nothing about that ..

There are some explanations lacking .Are we going to Invade China + India to stop them trying to survive.
By any means possible Imperialism again ---- Would not think that is the Ice Bear Huggers plan ..
Talking Bullshit getting the belly Full.

Having said that I can see benefits with electric cars in Urban regions Quieter and less Exhausts or at least exhausts that be centralized.
taken care off.
As far as I Understand it that is why this cannot succeed :Corrupt suits are traveling to Fancy Hotels pretending .
Sitting on their sloppy arses pretending having serious negotiations NOT A single one are going to those 800 million
Telling them in loud clear voice Now we are going to increase your living costs for our own benefits
Not a single one
And the corrupt Official from those countries is not that dumb that he signs any paper to that effect .Then he cant go home ..
More people running for the border or drowning in the Mediterranean

Again I am not ANTI I can se benefits .. But the debate lacks honesty and a thought trough honest vision.
And it will come ..Slowly Even though the emission balance can be bad

we all know there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and by the same token there ain't no such thing as a Zero Emissions Vehicle.

If there was a free lunch why are 800 000 000 starving ?? Is the English word Hoax .And Why not ..there is a buck to be made.

Besides that... there will be legal problems in granting certain cars certain Benefits .. Why not Mercedes or Cadillacs
As in Soviet union the Apparatchik Nomenclature ...Have other rules or no rules. Who is gonna grant those benefits
Benito Mussolini 2.0
 
Raymond, you nailed exactly what I was thinking. For me, the battery car is not viable because of the 250 mile range and the minimum charge times. No thank you.
"For every car on our roads to be zero emission by 2050, just under double the current total annual world cobalt production, 75% of the world’s lithium production and at least 50% of the world’s copper production would be required.
Currently, electric cars rely on lithium and cobalt batteries to run, which, whilst undoubtedly better for the environment than carbon, aren’t entirely clean."
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/blog/how-green-are-electric-cars/#gref
 
Speaking to what Raymond was getting at, I read this article a couple days ago about the Siberian city of Norilsk, in the Russian Arctic. They mine and process rare metals for the green industry ( battery production ). As Raymond said, there is no free lunch.

“even by the Russian government — as one of the most polluted places on Earth, because of one business: Norilsk Nickel, the world’s biggest producer of palladium and high-grade nickel and a top producer of platinum, cobalt and copper.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/norilsk-russian-arctic-became-one-polluted-places-earth-rcna6481
 
Raymond, you nailed exactly what I was thinking. For me, the battery car is not viable because of the 250 mile range and the minimum charge times. No thank you.
"For every car on our roads to be zero emission by 2050, just under double the current total annual world cobalt production, 75% of the world’s lithium production and at least 50% of the world’s copper production would be required.
Currently, electric cars rely on lithium and cobalt batteries to run, which, whilst undoubtedly better for the environment than carbon, aren’t entirely clean."
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/blog/how-green-are-electric-cars/#gref

I'm no particular fan of electric vehicles (says he who has a hybrid on order) but I think we should recognise that compared to the internal combustion engine the technology is still at an early stage.
I imagine similar comments to the nay sayers were made at the beginning of the twentieth century as the 'horseless carriages' became more common?
Given that a horse can travel all day without stopping, can be fed on easily sourced food and go over the majority of terrains and help your roses grow well, why would anyone want one of these new fangled vehicles that are unreliable, noisy, uncomfortable and need a special fluid to make them run which isn't readily available?

I agree that the technology, at least as it is now, is not the panacea that some would have us believe not only on terms of whole life energy use and emissions but also in acquisition cost and practicality. I also wonder how those who live in areas of high population density with no off street parking will be able to charge their vehicles?
IMO EV's will improve over time but I suspect, like the evolution of the i.c.engine, it will take some time before the technology could be considered mature and become mainstream.

What happens to the old batteries? They don't last forever...

Whilst it is possible to dispose of the batteries that are no longer serviceable, it is better to re-purpose them for use in other applications such as hone energy storage. A bit more info here.
 
I agree that the technology, at least as it is now, is not the panacea that some would have us believe not only on terms of whole life energy use and emissions but also in acquisition cost and practicality. I also wonder how those who live in areas of high population density with no off street parking will be able to charge their vehicles?
IMO EV's will improve over time but I suspect, like the evolution of the i.c.engine, it will take some time before the technology could be considered mature and become mainstream.
And this is exactly why I don't want it forced upon me. It's a tax I don't want to pay. In the early 20th Century, even though major city streets were ankle deep in horse dung, no one was pushing horseless carriages on those who did not want or could not afford them. When it becomes a viable option, I might see it differently.
 
And this is exactly why I don't want it forced upon me. It's a tax I don't want to pay.. When it becomes a viable option, I might see it differently.

When it becomes viable..............We all resist change and the older we get the harder it it to accept.

Problem is, with this thinking we will never get to a viable option because of the resistance for change so we end up no ware. ............all change is forced upon the masses either by law, or, by a majority of the people who want it, be it by voting or mass protesting.
 
'have been introduced to raise awareness of zero emissions cars on our roads and as they are easily identified it means that local authorities can offer incentives to EV drivers such as access to bus lanes, free entry into zero-emissions zones and cheaper parking.'

All very nice. But these are weasel words. Any measure which privileges electric vehicle owners will of necessity detriment drivers of non-electric vehicles.
 
All very nice. But these are weasel words. Any measure which privileges electric vehicle owners will of necessity detriment drivers of non-electric vehicles.

As an early adopter and paying a significantly higher price compared to an i.c vehicle IMO it isn't that unreasonable that some benefits are accrued.
I wouldn't fret too much 'cos once the number of e.v.'s increase that privilege will be taken back.
Not only that but additional charges will be levied to recoup the revenue lost from fuel duty. :rolleyes:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!

If we were worried about the environment, we would outlaw lithium mining.

If that was to be implemented then how do you propose that industries such as aircraft manufacture, battery production, pharmaceuticals, manufacture of optics, in pyrotechnics and in the production of such as heat-resistant glass and ceramics, lithium grease lubricants, and flux additives for iron, steel, and aluminium productions replace it?
 
I didn't intend to start a debate about the merits & demerits of electric cars.Though such a debate is needed and welcome.

Was just pointing to the absurdity - the Green number plate marking out the Zero Emissions vehicle. Maybe I think that gives an implied rebuke to the rest of us?

Was it Robert Heinlein who popularised TANSTAAFL? My contribution to that lexicon is TINSTAZE.

There is no such thing as zero emissions.
 
Last edited:
Alternatively it could be to allow those of us who haven't paid an exorbitant amount for our cars a chance to feel smug? o_O :)
I think most people are too embarrassed to drive what I've chosen to drive for my entire life. I view cars as necessary, but also a gross waste of money.
 
Back
Top