EU Green Deal - New ICE cars banned by 2035

[SpudHeadTed]

EU Green Deal visionary and realistic for climate.

In order to reach Carbon Neutral goal by 2050, ICE cars need to cease production by 2035. If we don’t do the same we’ll simply be left behind.

Will drivers get burned by EU ban on ICE cars? (https://techxplore.com/news/2021-07-drivers-eu-ice-cars.html)

European Union officially proposes ban on internal combustion engines from 2035 (https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-news/eu-ice-ban-proposal)

[RANDLOVER]

I think this actually came about because a green group sued the German govt about it's climate change targets and won, as the measures fell far short of the targets needed to achieve net 0% by 2050.

German Court Orders Revision Of Climate Act To Ease Burden On Younger Generation : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2021/04/29/992073429/german-court-orders-revisions-to-climate-law-citing-major-burdens-on-youth)

[101RRS]

Internal combustion engines will not be banned - only those burning fossil fuels. Just watching a Youtube channel at the moment where JCB tractors in the UK have come to realise electric is not an option for their heavy tractors (will need 8 tonne of batteries for a 4 hour run time then pulled off the job to recharge) so they have developed ICE hydrogen engines for their heavy machinery and prime movers.

So ultimately I think the automotive will bypass pure electric cars once hydrogen is freely available and go for hydrogen fuel cells with an alternative being ICEs running direct on hydrogen.

Garry

[3toes]

Hydrogen electric or ICE is the future. Battery has a 10 or 15 year horizon before being obsolete due to range limitations and recharge time and problems with how green the electricity is plus problems with battery manufacture and disposal. It will have an ongoing place in the market but as a niche player for specific purposes

Most hybrids actually are more polluting in real world conditions than a petrol powered alternative so the solution does not rest there either

Already seeing cabs in London moving to hydrogen as the battery cars spend too much time off the road being recharged and the high cost of the vehicle itself makes it difficult for the economic case to stack up without very significant government subsidies

For the last 30 years the breakthrough in battery technology for both range and recharge time have been just around the corner with plenty of headlined about breakthroughs with them not stacking up in real life

[SpudHeadTed]

The problem with Hydrogen is clearly fuel manufacture, transport and storage.

Manufacturing hydrogen fuel uses the electricity which could also be used to power an EV. So it’s double fuel use; + storage and transport of hydrogen fuel is difficult; + distribution network is expensive and way behind EV.

EV’s aren’t perfect either but as fossil fuel powered ICE’s are phased out, EV’s will be the domestic vehicle of choice.

Not a bad summary by Which Car (attached), although the assertion that average motorists are not interested in the environmental reasons for adopting renewable energy powered vehicles is typically out of touch. Cost of ownership is a major factor, but the majority of motorists after 2035 will be a new generation leaving primitive oil guzzlers in their wake for personal environmental reasons including clean air and anti-noise pollution, as much as reducing global warming. Not to mention the clear performance advantages of EV’s over ICEV’s.

Hydrogen cars versus EVs: What’s right for Australia? (https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/hydrogen-cars-versus-evs-whats-right-for-australia)

[3toes]

Hydrogen does not require transport. Is made on site using wind and solar electricity and water. Produced as required to keep fuel station tanks full then drawn off as vehicle needs it

[SpudHeadTed]

Hydrogen does not require transport. Is made on site using wind and solar electricity and water. Produced as required to keep fuel station tanks full then drawn off as vehicle needs it

Sounds simple but...

Hydrogen disadvantages


Infrastructure is virtually non-existent. This is hydrogen’s Achilles heel, for meaningful adoption of hydrogen cars won’t happen until there’s a sizable network of refuelling stations in place for the public to use. The amount of investment required to establish and maintain that network will be staggering for the following reason:
It requires special storage, either needing to be contained at massive pressure or extremely low temperatures. That makes transportation difficult, although CSIRO research into chemically transforming it into liquid ammonia indicates the problem of distribution might be able to be overcome in the near future.
Right now, commercial-scale hydrogen generation is done by reforming methane or natural gas with steam. Even cracking water into its base hydrogen and oxygen components is hardly a green process if it’s done with regular power grid energy – not to mention the power required to compress the gas to a pressure where it contains enough energy to drive a car a meaningful distance. For those that think hydrogen is a more eco-friendly option than a mains-charged electric car, they may want to take a closer look at hydrogen’s supply chain first.

[Tote]

EU Green Deal visionary and realistic for climate.

In order to reach Carbon Neutral goal by 2050, ICE cars need to cease production by 2035. If we don’t do the same we’ll simply be left behind.

Will drivers get burned by EU ban on ICE cars? (https://techxplore.com/news/2021-07-drivers-eu-ice-cars.html)

European Union officially proposes ban on internal combustion engines from 2035 (https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-news/eu-ice-ban-proposal)

We won't be left behind, there is no vehicle industry here, regardless of what the EU do our vehicle supply largely comes from elsewhere. It would be mere tokenism for Australia to ban ICE anyway, but i'm sure it would keep the green fringe happy.

[NavyDiver]

Internal combustion engines will not be banned - only those burning fossil fuels. Just watching a Youtube channel at the moment where JCB tractors in the UK have come to realise electric is not an option for their heavy tractors (will need 8 tonne of batteries for a 4 hour run time then pulled off the job to recharge) so they have developed ICE hydrogen engines for their heavy machinery and prime movers.

So ultimately I think the automotive will bypass pure electric cars once hydrogen is freely available and go for hydrogen fuel cells with an alternative being ICEs running direct on hydrogen.

Garry

Agree - the EU, Canada, Japan and the US are about to put a real reason why to move and some of it by 2026!.

Copy and paste from an investment rubbish site. NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE. Companies mentioned DO NOT MAKE MONEY Penny dreadfulls! DYOR and if you invest never listen to others especially me!


The EU. "The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, just released, means that trade and exports will now be on the menu in international climate negotiations. From 2026, emissions created through the production of any goods exported to the EU will be slapped with a tax equivalent to the EU carbon price – about $90 per tonne, or four times the price in our own carbon market.By itself, the EU’s CBAM will only affect a small amount of Australia’s exports. But it’s just the first of many climate trade dominoes to fall. Once the European Commission irons out the details, it will pave the way for others to implement their own carbon border taxes. Japan and Canada are working on similar mechanisms to the EU, and US Democrats announced plans for a “polluter import fee” this week, too."

With Canada, Japan, US and others - Australia -"As more countries price emissions both domestically and at the border, our exporters will take a double hit if we continue to lag behind our peers on emissions reduction"

Happily Hazer can be here there and anywhere for Hydrogen, CCS as a profitable side gig as Graphite. On Graphite and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms we are likely to see in from 2026 at possibly $90 per tonne will make Hazer carbon Negative Graphite at least $90 per tone cheaper and mined graphite!
Some parts of the mining sector are trying to move from the massive emissions they make. Not picking on just using Quantum Graphite Limited as an example.

Quantum Graphite Limited (Mikkira Graphite Deposit /Uley Graphite Mine- Port Lincoln) It is possibly "one of the largest coarse flake graphite deposits in the world"
"Quantum Graphite has entered a transformational joint venture agreement with The Sunlands Company to manufacture thermal energy storage battery cells, or “TES”, utilising graphite sourced from its Uley 2 deposit on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. Sunlands will contribute processing technologies and flake specifications for the final product, with the 50-50 partnership aiming to break into the burgeoning renewable power generation market." The mines carbon foot print may be average-

"A 2019 feasibility study envisaged an eight-year first-phase mining operation based on Uley 2 reserves alone, with a graphitic carbon grade of 11.89 per cent per annum at 84 per cent recovery.Capital costs came in at about A$80m for the 500,000 tonne per annum operation, with $207 million total undiscounted cash flow forecast for the life of mine.Subsequent stages of mining are planned for the existing resources and areas Quantum is drilling."

"The mining sector itself will also face pressure from governments, investors, and society to reduce emissions. Mining is currently responsible for 4 to 7 percent of greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions globally. Scope 1 and Scope 2 CO2 emissions from the sector (those incurred through mining operations and power consumption, respectively) amount to 1 percent, and fugitive-methane emissions from coal mining are estimated at 3 to 6 percent. 1 A significant share of global emissions—28 percent—would be considered Scope 3 (indirect) emissions, including the combustion of coal."

My thought are that Quantum and other Graphite miners face a known and foreseeable carbon emission risk as decarbonization shift demand for key minerals which in Graphites case, the Hazer produces Graphite as a salable resources in a manor making clean and C02 negative and effective permanent proven Carbon Capture and Storage. This clear advantage for Hazer stands out as no other method I can see can equal

Lock down Number 5 in Dry July- Doh- Have a great weekend all

[Homestar]

Sounds simple but...

Hydrogen disadvantages


Infrastructure is virtually non-existent. This is hydrogen’s Achilles heel, for meaningful adoption of hydrogen cars won’t happen until there’s a sizable network of refuelling stations in place for the public to use. The amount of investment required to establish and maintain that network will be staggering for the following reason:
It requires special storage, either needing to be contained at massive pressure or extremely low temperatures. That makes transportation difficult, although CSIRO research into chemically transforming it into liquid ammonia indicates the problem of distribution might be able to be overcome in the near future.
Right now, commercial-scale hydrogen generation is done by reforming methane or natural gas with steam. Even cracking water into its base hydrogen and oxygen components is hardly a green process if it’s done with regular power grid energy – not to mention the power required to compress the gas to a pressure where it contains enough energy to drive a car a meaningful distance. For those that think hydrogen is a more eco-friendly option than a mains-charged electric car, they may want to take a closer look at hydrogen’s supply chain first.



Point 1 - Same for battery EV's - infrastructure virtually non existent and VERY expensive to put in. EV's are in the same boat - until you can drive anywhere and get a charge, they won't become as popular as they need to be - chicken and egg for both techs. Remember when people said LPG would never take off because the infrastructure wasn't there? I do - it wasn't that long ago in the grand scheme of things.
Point 2 - So do all fuels - This would be a non issue by the time the infrastructure is being planned and rolled out and this is being shown in the pilot plants and outlets being built at the moment.
Point 3 - EV's are horrible for the environment too in virtually every respect you've pointed out - dig up the planet for toxic metals to make the batteries, charge them with coal fired stations, etc. Greener production of Hydrogen is becoming big business and while I agree most at the moment isn't close, the fact is can be produced using fully renewable energy is a big plus IMO.

I could point out many disadvantages to battery EV's but I'm not anti them - I think there's place for a mix of Battery EV's, Hydrogen Fuel cell EV's and Hydrogen powered ICE vehicles - I think we'll see all 3 of these proliferate in coming decades as they all have pro's and con's depending on what you need the vehicle to do. Cars are very different to trucks and Ag gear - the bigger stuff is likely to go to Hydrogen ICE longer term - these engines are already out there and being developed same as the other technologies are.

For a 2 car family I could eventually see an battery EV as the second car/run around being charged from the home solar/battery setup and a Fuel cell EV towing the caravan on holidays, etc for the range and convenience. I don't see battery tech being able to make many more great leaps to be able to compete on the distance/cost issues - the energy density of lithium is about as good as it gets so it's really all about improving the tech around this - we're not going to see another quantum leap like we did from lead acid to lithium.

[Grumbles]

All this talk of banning ICE cars/fossil fueled cars is fine and dandy but there is one important aspect being overlooked. That is the average age of the Oz car fleet which is 10 years with Tasmania being 13 years. combine this with why this is the case. Basically it comes down to low personal incomes - think pensioners, single income families, low payng jobs etc. - Having low incomes precludes the possibility of ever buying a more modern car.

Banning these cars will cause huge hardship for the owners. They simply can't afford to replace their ICE cars with a hydrogen or battery car. Removing their mobility at the stroke of a pen will at best result in social unrest and possibly/probably violence similar to the recent Black Lives Matter riots in the USA. It may be worse here because it will likely be country wide unrest rather than the city confined riots of the USA.

It is important to note that in Oz rural regions the loss of a car means isolation from work, schools, shops, doctors, social needs etc. In other words no car is a stay at home situation.

[101RRS]

All this talk of banning ICE cars/fossil fueled cars is fine and dandy but there is one important aspect being overlooked. That is the average age of the Oz car fleet which is 10 years with Tasmania being 13 years. combine this with why this is the case. Basically it comes down to low personal incomes - think pensioners, single income families, low payng jobs etc. - Having low incomes precludes the possibility of ever buying a more modern car.

Banning these cars will cause huge hardship for the owners. They simply can't afford to replace their ICE cars with a hydrogen or battery car. Removing their mobility at the stroke of a pen will at best result in social unrest and possibly/probably violence similar to the recent Black Lives Matter riots in the USA. It may be worse here because it will likely be country wide unrest rather than the city confined riots of the USA.

It is important to note that in Oz rural regions the loss of a car means isolation from work, schools, shops, doctors, social needs etc. In other words no car is a stay at home situation.

You have missed the point - there is no ban on fossil fuelled ICEs - there is going to be a ban of manufacturers selling new vehicles - there is no intention to ban cars already on the road as these will just die a slow agonising death. So the great unwashed can still have their old cars but if they want a new one it will have to be electric or hydrogen.

[3toes]

Personally I do not care if my vehicle is powered by batteries or something else just that it can do what I need it to do for an affordable cost

At the moment the move to electric is in a limited number of countries and is generally a political statement for something to happen at a point in the future when they who are making the statements will no longer be in the job

[ChookD2]

So if they are going to ban the sale of new ICE cars then they will have to ban the sale of second hand ICE cars as well, as these are far more inefficient and polluting than anything new. Where does that leave "the great unwashed", who (like me) would never be able to afford a new hydrogen, EV, hybrid vehicle when their current ICE gives up the ghost?

[101RRS]

Where does that leave "the great unwashed", who (like me) would never be able to afford a new hydrogen, EV, hybrid vehicle when their current ICE gives up the ghost?

Buy a second hand hydrogen, EV, hybrid vehicle [thumbsupbig]

[vnx205]

So if they are going to ban the sale of new ICE cars then they will have to ban the sale of second hand ICE cars as well, as these are far more inefficient and polluting than anything new. Where does that leave "the great unwashed", who (like me) would never be able to afford a new hydrogen, EV, hybrid vehicle when their current ICE gives up the ghost?

Why will they have to ban the sale of second hand ICE vehicles?

When new emission regulations have been imposed on new cars, there were not bans placed on the sale of older vehicles that didn't meet the new standard.

You still be able to buy second hand ICE for quite a while.

[prelude]

Living in europe, I think those blokes are a bit out of touch with reality. Sure, 2035 IS quite a long ways away but looking at the number of cars sold per year, you would need to pollute an AWFUL lot to build that many lithium packs and I am not looking at CO2 because frankly, I care less about that than other pollution that is going on in the world. (unpopular opinion, I know) Also, if you want to go hydrogen, which I support btw, that still is a huge amount of work to be done, it borders on unfeasible. Who is going to pay for all this?

warning, rant:

I get that something needs to be done, but as a late gen X'er I feel that I am paying for all of it. I am cleaning the mess up from the previous generation(s) AND I am supposed to pay for cleaning it up even more then it was before for the milenials that come after me (or even a generation newer). It is highly frustrating especially since I am not given a choice in most cases.

/end rant

Having said that, everyone is in a bit of a pickle down here since there was a lot of rain lately. I live with one of the three big rivers in my backyard and water levels will go to record highs tomorrow. This should be good. If that levy goes, I am pretty much assured that none of my stuff survives. Fortunately I live in a part of the river system where there was the space to do things (make way for the river), there was the budget (barely I might add) to do these things and just enough political will to actually get all this done. Looking at the CO2/climate change debacle though I feel that we are missing the point. Sure doing nothing won't change anything but if the money that was spend on those hideous windmills and all those solar parks was instead put into actually protecting people from the inevitable consequences they would all still have dry feet upstream and by god still be alive!

So, back to the original topic, a ban on new ICE's in 2035? Might just as well since modern engines are being squeezed so much they are neither fun nor reliable anymore by that time. Is it realistic? I have my doubts. My main concern is: I WANT to drive my gas guzzler, it is my hobby and I choose to do so. I do not mind if it costs me extra. With regards to the environment; my house has had electric (green) heating and water since 2003. I do my bit for the world, but I want my car. Will that remain to be a choice? Will people respect me for my choices as I respect theirs? Or are all the greenies going to tell me what I can and cannot do?

Ok, perhaps this was the actual end of the rant then :)

Cheers,
-P

[DiscoMick]

I think the actual rule proposed is to require zero tailpipe emissions.
Which vehicles can achieve zero tailpipe emissions? EVs and hydrogen.

[Phideaux]

I think this actually came about because a green group sued the German govt about it's climate change targets and won, as the measures fell far short of the targets needed to achieve net 0% by 2050.

German Court Orders Revision Of Climate Act To Ease Burden On Younger Generation : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2021/04/29/992073429/german-court-orders-revisions-to-climate-law-citing-major-burdens-on-youth)

It's a sod when 'we-the-people' including 'we-the-not-old-enough-to-vote-yet' have to sue our governments to do the right thing by the next generation instead of slavishly serving the billionaires' club. Many of whom have substantially benefited - nearly doubled, in some cases - from the pandemic. Mostly sleight-of-hand stuff that puts government money in private accounts. Don't trust me, look it up.

I'm nearly 70; I grasped the essentials of Climate Change when I was fourteen. 55 years ago; which is when the key predictions - visible in the disaster headlines for the last few years - were made. It's been on the scientific agenda since the late nineteenth century. That's at least 130 years ago. While some of the direst predictions made early on did not come to pass, the later predictions of "If this, then that" (eg, CO2 concentration) are accurate. My grandchildren are right to be angry with our Lilliputian so-called-leaders of the last fifty years.

Is this a rant? It feels like despair.

[Phideaux]

Hydrogen electric or ICE is the future. Battery has a 10 or 15 year horizon before being obsolete due to range limitations and recharge time and problems with how green the electricity is plus problems with battery manufacture and disposal. It will have an ongoing place in the market but as a niche player for specific purposes

Most hybrids actually are more polluting in real world conditions than a petrol powered alternative so the solution does not rest there either

Already seeing cabs in London moving to hydrogen as the battery cars spend too much time off the road being recharged and the high cost of the vehicle itself makes it difficult for the economic case to stack up without very significant government subsidies

For the last 30 years the breakthrough in battery technology for both range and recharge time have been just around the corner with plenty of headlined about breakthroughs with them not stacking up in real life

Despite the eye-watering cost of EVs initially, even at their current over-pricing they already break even at 10 years just on maintenance costs (firstly) and running costs (secondly). And there has been startling improvement in solar panels. The over-the-counter (and cheaper) panels one can get now are many percentage points more efficient that the predictions of 'theoretical(!) recovery of solar>to>electricity' of a few decades ago. I bought my household solar panels on the basis of 'full cost recovery in 10 years'. I'll have full cost recovery in 7 years. At today's prices, this would be 5 years.

EVs have very few moving parts (comparatively). That's their biggest advantage on dollar-only analysis.

Incidentally, Hyundai's ICONIQ 5 will accept something like 800kwh charging (very complex, computer guided) and go from 20% to 80% in just over 15 minutes.

Bearing in mind that a 1902 6.3 litre Fiat produced 32hp and a 2021 2.0 litre Mercedes can produce 450hp, progress in this (EV/Battery) area over the next decades is a pretty safe bet.

I also can easily envisage some farms having 'windmill to hydrogen ICE' on-site set-ups making economic sense in the foreseeable future.

The NSW State government is awake on this renewables issue; the current Feds are trying to tell us that 'non-renewable gas is green' (what??).

[Homestar]

Despite the eye-watering cost of EVs initially, even at their current over-pricing they already break even at 10 years just on maintenance costs (firstly) and running costs (secondly). And there has been startling improvement in solar panels. The over-the-counter (and cheaper) panels one can get now are many percentage points more efficient that the predictions of 'theoretical(!) recovery of solar>to>electricity' of a few decades ago. I bought my household solar panels on the basis of 'full cost recovery in 10 years'. I'll have full cost recovery in 7 years. At today's prices, this would be 5 years.

EVs have very few moving parts (comparatively). That's their biggest advantage on dollar-only analysis.

Incidentally, Hyundai's ICONIQ 5 will accept something like 800kwh charging (very complex, computer guided) and go from 20% to 80% in just over 15 minutes.

Bearing in mind that a 1902 6.3 litre Fiat produced 32hp and a 2021 2.0 litre Mercedes can produce 450hp, progress in this (EV/Battery) area over the next decades is a pretty safe bet.

I also can easily envisage some farms having 'windmill to hydrogen ICE' on-site set-ups making economic sense in the foreseeable future.

The NSW State government is awake on this renewables issue; the current Feds are trying to tell us that 'non-renewable gas is green' (what??).

Pity their design life isn't that long to see the benefits. [bigwhistle]

[Phideaux]

Pity their design life isn't that long to see the benefits. [bigwhistle]

Homestar,
I take your point re 'design life'; and it's one of the reasons that Land Rover (or other genuine off-roader) is a better buy.
What 'the b******s' have done is used computer simulation to produce a just-outside-of-warranty life for parts; whereas cars built by the same maker before the availability of this kind of non-field testing used 'well, we'd better give it some robustness and redundancy'.

So our good (new?) Land Rovers are actually built with an expectation of some harsh use and remote location use - hopefully this means we don't get let down in the outback or the driveway quite so early.

Apparently BMW's Mini is one of the (worst) for tick-tock up to the minute of warranty expiry.

Meanwhile - and re my earlier post re technological change - stumbled across this with my morning news-feed:

‘Lightbulb moment’: the battery technology invented in a Brisbane garage that is going global | Brisbane | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/18/lightbulb-moment-the-battery-technology-invented-in-a-brisbane-garage-that-is-going-global?utm_term=199ef7fc8e991aacee2f8ba8dfe2b408&utm_campaign=GreenLight&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email)

[Homestar]

Homestar,
I take your point re 'design life'; and it's one of the reasons that Land Rover (or other genuine off-roader) is a better buy.
What 'the b******s' have done is used computer simulation to produce a just-outside-of-warranty life for parts; whereas cars built by the same maker before the availability of this kind of non-field testing used 'well, we'd better give it some robustness and redundancy'.

So our good (new?) Land Rovers are actually built with an expectation of some harsh use and remote location use - hopefully this means we don't get let down in the outback or the driveway quite so early.

Apparently BMW's Mini is one of the (worst) for tick-tock up to the minute of warranty expiry.

Meanwhile - and re my earlier post re technological change - stumbled across this with my morning news-feed:

‘Lightbulb moment’: the battery technology invented in a Brisbane garage that is going global | Brisbane | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/18/lightbulb-moment-the-battery-technology-invented-in-a-brisbane-garage-that-is-going-global?utm_term=199ef7fc8e991aacee2f8ba8dfe2b408&utm_campaign=GreenLight&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email)

Yeah, but who can afford a new Land Rover? I sure can’t and most can’t either.

Well that’s not exactly true - I could actually get a loan easily to cover one but there’s no way I’d spend that sort of money on any vehicle.

Most I’ve even spent on a car is around $40K a couple of times. If I needed to buy a car now if I didn’t have a company car my pick would be a late 90’s to early 2000’s Camry as these will still be going when a current model Land Rover is dead and buried.

[Phideaux]

Yeah, but who can afford a new Land Rover? I sure can’t and most can’t either.

Well that’s not exactly true - I could actually get a loan easily to cover one but there’s no way I’d spend that sort of money on any vehicle.

Most I’ve even spent on a car is around $40K a couple of times. If I needed to buy a car now if I didn’t have a company car my pick would be a late 90’s to early 2000’s Camry as these will still be going when a current model Land Rover is dead and buried.

(Noting your eclectic collection) (PS, one-time owner of a 1972 XJ6)
Well, I suppose we just have to draw comfort from the fact that the trendoids do buy them new (and never take them off-road) and thereby supply we-the-impoverished with affordable and hardy off-road-capable vehicles.
I've heard that most Range Rovers aren't taken off-road until their 3rd or 4th owner.
((Leave it at that?))

[Tombie]

Homestar,
I take your point re 'design life'; and it's one of the reasons that Land Rover (or other genuine off-roader) is a better buy.
What 'the b******s' have done is used computer simulation to produce a just-outside-of-warranty life for parts; whereas cars built by the same maker before the availability of this kind of non-field testing used 'well, we'd better give it some robustness and redundancy'.

So our good (new?) Land Rovers are actually built with an expectation of some harsh use and remote location use - hopefully this means we don't get let down in the outback or the driveway quite so early.

Apparently BMW's Mini is one of the (worst) for tick-tock up to the minute of warranty expiry.

Meanwhile - and re my earlier post re technological change - stumbled across this with my morning news-feed:

‘Lightbulb moment’: the battery technology invented in a Brisbane garage that is going global | Brisbane | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/18/lightbulb-moment-the-battery-technology-invented-in-a-brisbane-garage-that-is-going-global?utm_term=199ef7fc8e991aacee2f8ba8dfe2b408&utm_campaign=GreenLight&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email)


Good on the start up mob... Rolled my eyes when the "flying cars" crap came up in the article though...

[Homestar]

(Noting your eclectic collection) (PS, one-time owner of a 1972 XJ6)
Well, I suppose we just have to draw comfort from the fact that the trendoids do buy them new (and never take them off-road) and thereby supply we-the-impoverished with affordable and hardy off-road-capable vehicles.
I've heard that most Range Rovers aren't taken off-road until their 3rd or 4th owner.
((Leave it at that?))

All my cars together if I sold them wouldn’t buy me half a new Range Rover… [emoji17]

Not sure how many new Range Rovers will still be on the road in 45 years time either. [emoji6]

[Phideaux]

All my cars together if I sold them wouldn’t buy me half a new Range Rover… [emoji17]

Not sure how many new Range Rovers will still be on the road in 45 years time either. [emoji6]

(Sorry - my word-picture sense of humour: would half a Range Rover be a motorbike called a Ra-Ro?)

45 years time - dunno about RRs on the road (or off it) but I sure won't be! And not sure if my grandchildren - in their late fifties by then - will even be interested in off-road expeditions. They're (seriously) into drones.