FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Vat free Electric cars?
Vat free Electric cars?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? " The article says last year they had record sales numbers. Not "falling" sales numbers. It says they dropped in market share. VAT cut seems sensible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? The article says last year they had record sales numbers. Not "falling" sales numbers. It says they dropped in market share. VAT cut seems sensible. " and by 0.1pc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? The article says last year they had record sales numbers. Not "falling" sales numbers. It says they dropped in market share. VAT cut seems sensible. " If market share is falling, customers are seeking other options. Why not cut vat on all cars? And let the market decide? Surely that's capitalist system | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? The article says last year they had record sales numbers. Not "falling" sales numbers. It says they dropped in market share. VAT cut seems sensible. " BBC and others say Tory MP Chris Skidmore to quit next week over bill 'that promotes production of sunaks new oil and gas” To avoid a backlash maybe a car or other tax cut ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? The article says last year they had record sales numbers. Not "falling" sales numbers. It says they dropped in market share. VAT cut seems sensible. BBC and others say Tory MP Chris Skidmore to quit next week over bill 'that promotes production of sunaks new oil and gas” To avoid a backlash maybe a car or other tax cut ? " he has quit hasn't he? As an MP (so by election) rather than just as a minister or the whip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? The article says last year they had record sales numbers. Not "falling" sales numbers. It says they dropped in market share. VAT cut seems sensible. If market share is falling, customers are seeking other options. Why not cut vat on all cars? And let the market decide? Surely that's capitalist system " Because there are more important things to consider than capitalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? The article says last year they had record sales numbers. Not "falling" sales numbers. It says they dropped in market share. VAT cut seems sensible. If market share is falling, customers are seeking other options. Why not cut vat on all cars? And let the market decide? Surely that's capitalist system Because there are more important things to consider than capitalism." As in? We live in a free market economy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? The article says last year they had record sales numbers. Not "falling" sales numbers. It says they dropped in market share. VAT cut seems sensible. If market share is falling, customers are seeking other options. Why not cut vat on all cars? And let the market decide? Surely that's capitalist system Because there are more important things to consider than capitalism. As in? We live in a free market economy " I don't think we do, there are lots of regulations and controls in place for example rules on monopolies. But the answer is: Transitioning away from fossil fuels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were more Electrical vehicles sold last year than ever before. This has been driven by companies who use them as company vehicles. Sales of Electric vehicles to the general public are way down on previous years with a lot of people going back to petrol/ diesel vehicles." Company car drivers are guided by the tax breaks on the benefits in kind for electric cars . A private buyer would think twice about buying when he has to consider all the negatives about electric car ownership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were more Electrical vehicles sold last year than ever before. This has been driven by companies who use them as company vehicles. Sales of Electric vehicles to the general public are way down on previous years with a lot of people going back to petrol/ diesel vehicles. Company car drivers are guided by the tax breaks on the benefits in kind for electric cars . A private buyer would think twice about buying when he has to consider all the negatives about electric car ownership. " The problem at the moment is that there aren’t many EV’s at the lower end of the market… and the value doesn’t depreciate nearly as quickly as it does for petrol or diesel cars… Once the lower end EV’s start coming out… for example the MG4 has outperformed sales wise more than most people would expect.. but it’s still a 26k car! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have gone electric recently on a business lease through my own company and what isnt picked up in this thread is how brilliant they are to drive. I still have and love my old Mitzi L200 necessary for the horses but the electric drive is so very smooth, immediate acceleration. I agree more incentives are needed and the charging infrastructure is slowly improving " The Uk actually has 75000 charging points so it’s actually from that standpoint not bad but yes it needs to get better One of the other issues is going to be regulated charging pricing … it’s weird that Tesla can operate theirs, have a much better maintenance system, and still charge per kw 2 to 3 times less that others It does feel like from other providers there is a sense of price gouging going on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have gone electric recently on a business lease through my own company and what isnt picked up in this thread is how brilliant they are to drive. I still have and love my old Mitzi L200 necessary for the horses but the electric drive is so very smooth, immediate acceleration. I agree more incentives are needed and the charging infrastructure is slowly improving The Uk actually has 75000 charging points so it’s actually from that standpoint not bad but yes it needs to get better One of the other issues is going to be regulated charging pricing … it’s weird that Tesla can operate theirs, have a much better maintenance system, and still charge per kw 2 to 3 times less that others It does feel like from other providers there is a sense of price gouging going on " Providing a charging system for every terraced house in the U.K. will require technology not yet available. In most terraced streets at least some car owners have to park where they can find a space which is unlikely to be outside their house, possibly not even on the same street and probably never in the same place on consecutive nights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have gone electric recently on a business lease through my own company and what isnt picked up in this thread is how brilliant they are to drive. I still have and love my old Mitzi L200 necessary for the horses but the electric drive is so very smooth, immediate acceleration. I agree more incentives are needed and the charging infrastructure is slowly improving The Uk actually has 75000 charging points so it’s actually from that standpoint not bad but yes it needs to get better One of the other issues is going to be regulated charging pricing … it’s weird that Tesla can operate theirs, have a much better maintenance system, and still charge per kw 2 to 3 times less that others It does feel like from other providers there is a sense of price gouging going on Providing a charging system for every terraced house in the U.K. will require technology not yet available. In most terraced streets at least some car owners have to park where they can find a space which is unlikely to be outside their house, possibly not even on the same street and probably never in the same place on consecutive nights." That’s not really lateral thinking…. You don’t have a petrol station outside every home…. So why are people expecting the same with EV’s People aren’t going to be driving more… so most will need charging on the same reasonable basis they would need to refuel at a petrol station In reality they will turn a lot of petrol stations into petrol/ charging stations….actually space wise you would need less overall space for an EV spot than for a petrol spot A lot of cars now can cope with 250kw/ 350 kw charging…. A lot are future proofing where they could take 400/800kw…. But even a 250kw charger will fill a car from 10% to 80% in minutes….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Providing a charging system for every terraced house in the U.K. will require technology not yet available. ." Inductive charging is a possibility. . Volvo has been testing a wireless charging system for its XC40 vehicles as part of a three-year test which has resulted in a system that can charge at up to 40kW. . Meanwhile, Genesis’ system can charge at a more modest 11kW, which means that it would take a Nissan Leaf with a 40kWh battery about four hours to fully charge (which would give the driver approximately 270km in range), while Volvo’s offering would be fully charged in an hour. . The bottom line is, it is possible for whole streets to have induction charging. It could essentially be everywhere. It just needs the will to achieve it. Sure, there is a cost one generation will have to bear, but if it means future generations will have access to better energy provision for EV vehicles, provided cheaply and efficiently, then isn't that a good legacy to provide those who come after us ? As my parents used to say, "We endured hardships and struggles to provide a better world for our children", so isn't it only fair we do the same for those who come after us ? Pay it forward ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have gone electric recently on a business lease through my own company and what isnt picked up in this thread is how brilliant they are to drive. I still have and love my old Mitzi L200 necessary for the horses but the electric drive is so very smooth, immediate acceleration. I agree more incentives are needed and the charging infrastructure is slowly improving The Uk actually has 75000 charging points so it’s actually from that standpoint not bad but yes it needs to get better One of the other issues is going to be regulated charging pricing … it’s weird that Tesla can operate theirs, have a much better maintenance system, and still charge per kw 2 to 3 times less that others It does feel like from other providers there is a sense of price gouging going on Providing a charging system for every terraced house in the U.K. will require technology not yet available. In most terraced streets at least some car owners have to park where they can find a space which is unlikely to be outside their house, possibly not even on the same street and probably never in the same place on consecutive nights. That’s not really lateral thinking…. You don’t have a petrol station outside every home…. So why are people expecting the same with EV’s People aren’t going to be driving more… so most will need charging on the same reasonable basis they would need to refuel at a petrol station In reality they will turn a lot of petrol stations into petrol/ charging stations….actually space wise you would need less overall space for an EV spot than for a petrol spot A lot of cars now can cope with 250kw/ 350 kw charging…. A lot are future proofing where they could take 400/800kw…. But even a 250kw charger will fill a car from 10% to 80% in minutes….." 30-40 minutes to charge is not 3-4 mins to put petrol in your car. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 30-40 minutes to charge is not 3-4 mins to put petrol in your car. " Indeed. But by the time you've got out, stretched your legs, grabbed a coffee/tea, been to the restroom, that 30 mins has flown by. Humans need recharging too to operate at peak efficiency, and it's good to refresh our own batteries.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
It's a great drive though  .
What shocked me was going from £30 road tax to £160 for a small car. Govt could correct that the thieving bastards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 30-40 minutes to charge is not 3-4 mins to put petrol in your car. Indeed. But by the time you've got out, stretched your legs, grabbed a coffee/tea, been to the restroom, that 30 mins has flown by. Humans need recharging too to operate at peak efficiency, and it's good to refresh our own batteries. "Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have gone electric recently on a business lease through my own company and what isnt picked up in this thread is how brilliant they are to drive. I still have and love my old Mitzi L200 necessary for the horses but the electric drive is so very smooth, immediate acceleration. I agree more incentives are needed and the charging infrastructure is slowly improving The Uk actually has 75000 charging points so it’s actually from that standpoint not bad but yes it needs to get better One of the other issues is going to be regulated charging pricing … it’s weird that Tesla can operate theirs, have a much better maintenance system, and still charge per kw 2 to 3 times less that others It does feel like from other providers there is a sense of price gouging going on Providing a charging system for every terraced house in the U.K. will require technology not yet available. In most terraced streets at least some car owners have to park where they can find a space which is unlikely to be outside their house, possibly not even on the same street and probably never in the same place on consecutive nights. That’s not really lateral thinking…. You don’t have a petrol station outside every home…. So why are people expecting the same with EV’s People aren’t going to be driving more… so most will need charging on the same reasonable basis they would need to refuel at a petrol station In reality they will turn a lot of petrol stations into petrol/ charging stations….actually space wise you would need less overall space for an EV spot than for a petrol spot A lot of cars now can cope with 250kw/ 350 kw charging…. A lot are future proofing where they could take 400/800kw…. But even a 250kw charger will fill a car from 10% to 80% in minutes….. 30-40 minutes to charge is not 3-4 mins to put petrol in your car. " And that is because a lot of the older cars can only charge at a speed of somewhere between 100-150kw max…. Once 250/350/400/800 become the norm you will be looking at minutes.. and most of the new platforms the car manufacturers are making can cope with that, but at the moment are being limited speed wise because the infrastructure isn’t keeping up with it yet… For example Tesla are now putting in the 350kw v2 superchargers… but there are no cars that actually charge at that speed yet There are electric trucks/buses that can run off the much higher speed and larger batteries for extra distance obviously | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "A lot of cars now can cope with 250kw/ 350 kw charging…. A lot are future proofing where they could take 400/800kw…." "For example Tesla are now putting in the 350kw v2 superchargers… but there are no cars that actually charge at that speed yet" " Which one is it Fabio? Those 2 statements contradict each other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. " Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have gone electric recently on a business lease through my own company and what isnt picked up in this thread is how brilliant they are to drive. I still have and love my old Mitzi L200 necessary for the horses but the electric drive is so very smooth, immediate acceleration. I agree more incentives are needed and the charging infrastructure is slowly improving The Uk actually has 75000 charging points so it’s actually from that standpoint not bad but yes it needs to get better One of the other issues is going to be regulated charging pricing … it’s weird that Tesla can operate theirs, have a much better maintenance system, and still charge per kw 2 to 3 times less that others It does feel like from other providers there is a sense of price gouging going on " The pricing of using the chargers is what shocked me when watching a video comparing a hybrid, a plug in hybrid and a full EV on a long ish journey. The EV was by far the most expensive to do the journey but it was because the distance was close to the official range so they had to give it a recharge at a service station. When they done a shorter test in town using home charger only the EV was the cheapest but only by pennies compared to the others. As you say if tesla can do their chargers cheaper then the others should | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair." What is the actual gain from owning an EV? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair." I'm not against EVs per se. I just believe that the majority of people will take convenience over 'being green'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. What is the actual gain from owning an EV?" Jury out on that Tyre particulate emissions are up to 1800 times more than ICE exhaust emissions, which puts the green agenda for vehicles into perspective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. What is the actual gain from owning an EV?" Quieter, cleaner, more refined drive. Downside as is being alluded to on this thread that the charging technology is not yet available to charge every car quickly. We will buy a plug in hybrid next year when our car is up for renewing. The plug in charge will cope with all of our local journeys and the engine will be useful for the very long journeys that we need to make probably a dozen or so times each year. Been reading up on the latest Prius (5th generation) that is scheduled to arrive in Europe later this year and it looks fantastic - design, spec, performance and versatility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. I'm not against EVs per se. I just believe that the majority of people will take convenience over 'being green'. " I agree, but having recently spent some time in the new Toyota Corolla hybrid, I would say that the latest generation hybrids have only upsides- whatever your driving profile looks like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That’s not really lateral thinking…. You don’t have a petrol station outside every home…. So why are people expecting the same with EV’s" Because every time someone points out that it takes 5 minutes to fill a car with diesel and 40 minutes to charge an EV, someone claims that it's not a problem because we'll do most of our charging overnight parked on our own drives. "In reality they will turn a lot of petrol stations into petrol/ charging stations….actually space wise you would need less overall space for an EV spot than for a petrol spot" You've not thought this through. If it takes 8 times as long to fill an EV, that EV is parked for 8 times longer than an ICE car would be. That means you'll need 8 times the number of parking spaces to service the same number of cars. If a filling station has 5 pumps and is fairly busy, it'll need 40 charging points to serve the same number of EVs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. I'm not against EVs per se. I just believe that the majority of people will take convenience over 'being green'. I agree, but having recently spent some time in the new Toyota Corolla hybrid, I would say that the latest generation hybrids have only upsides- whatever your driving profile looks like." I can't get my head round selection charging hybrids. I had a Kia Sorento (petrol) for a while and seen zero difference on fuel costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is the actual gain from owning an EV?" I thought the overall aim was to save the planet, reduce emissions, and also have cheap fuel. . However if the fuel cost isn't cheap, you won't motivate as many people as you could. . Doesn't it always seem that when there is the potential to save money, someone else will come along to ensure the savings are not fully realised or achievable ? There is always conflict of interest. That's what you need to break. That "pinch-point". . Going wildly off tangent and in to the realms of la-la land, but can you imagine if an alien civilisation appeared tomorrow and gave us an unknown secret for limitless and free energy, that everyone could easily adopt for little to no cost. Sure, they'd be a period of transition, but if energy costs for the whole planet were eliminated, it certainly would be a very different world indeed for so many reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is the actual gain from owning an EV? I thought the overall aim was to save the planet, reduce emissions, and also have cheap fuel. . However if the fuel cost isn't cheap, you won't motivate as many people as you could. . Doesn't it always seem that when there is the potential to save money, someone else will come along to ensure the savings are not fully realised or achievable ? There is always conflict of interest. That's what you need to break. That "pinch-point". . Going wildly off tangent and in to the realms of la-la land, but can you imagine if an alien civilisation appeared tomorrow and gave us an unknown secret for limitless and free energy, that everyone could easily adopt for little to no cost. Sure, they'd be a period of transition, but if energy costs for the whole planet were eliminated, it certainly would be a very different world indeed for so many reasons." I still do not understand the gains of owning an EV. In most cases the carbon footprint of an EV is greater than the ICE. The electricity being produced is still using gas and oil in the majority of cases and EV's are currently not being purchased in the used market by the public, making them more polluting in their life time than ICE. Have I got this wrong? Thinking about the future when the infrastructure has been completed, range issues resolved, it is an alternative but possibly still not the best it could be. I can only see a better outcome if cars were not owned and were used for purpose only, hired per use and driverless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the climate impact of manufacturing one billion electric cars to replace the same number of ICE on the worlds roads, and the global charging infrastructure required, add the scrapage costs of a billion vehicles that may still have a 10-15-20 year useful life. A lot of rhetoric on the minor details faced by users but what net benefit will the planet gain from this new transport. " You have put it better than I have been  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom." "Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair." At the moment I don't need to think about fuel. Every few weeks a little light comes on to tell me that I only have another hundred miles, I look out for a filling station, and 5 minutes later the car is full again and I don't need to think about it for another few weeks. Getting an EV means adding a whole new worry to my life. I need to keep track of charge, and make sure that I have enough time to make my journey and include a 40 minute break in the middle for charging. And my regular 400 mile drives up and down the country would take 80 minutes longer as I'll have to charge before I leave, and then charge again when that runs out short of my destination. I realise that I'm not a standard driver, having no ability to charge at home or at work, and needing to do regular long journeys, but I'm not exactly unique. I find standing at the diesel pump for 3 minutes a tedious interruption to my journey. Having to take a 40 minute break would be just intolerable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Electric cars are bollocks. Bugger carbon footprint than fossil fuel cars" Not just cars, global shipping and airlines are not going to run on Duracell. Add industry, agriculture and construction to name just a few. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the climate impact of manufacturing one billion electric cars to replace the same number of ICE on the worlds roads, and the global charging infrastructure required, add the scrapage costs of a billion vehicles that may still have a 10-15-20 year useful life. A lot of rhetoric on the minor details faced by users but what net benefit will the planet gain from this new transport. " No one is talking about manufacturing new cars specifically to replace existing working cars. So you don't need to worry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Bugger carbon footprint" Can Fab as this as an interest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the climate impact of manufacturing one billion electric cars to replace the same number of ICE on the worlds roads, and the global charging infrastructure required, add the scrapage costs of a billion vehicles that may still have a 10-15-20 year useful life. A lot of rhetoric on the minor details faced by users but what net benefit will the planet gain from this new transport. No one is talking about manufacturing new cars specifically to replace existing working cars. So you don't need to worry." What is the purpose of changing to EV if the gains are not there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the climate impact of manufacturing one billion electric cars to replace the same number of ICE on the worlds roads, and the global charging infrastructure required, add the scrapage costs of a billion vehicles that may still have a 10-15-20 year useful life. A lot of rhetoric on the minor details faced by users but what net benefit will the planet gain from this new transport. No one is talking about manufacturing new cars specifically to replace existing working cars. So you don't need to worry. What is the purpose of changing to EV if the gains are not there?" What gains are you saying aren't there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reported that once EVs dominate the global car market, there's about 70 years' worth of lithium until the identified global reserves are themselves depleted. After that, we'd have to turn to pulling lithium from the sea, which is a much more expensive proposition." The key word there is 'identified'. When there's 70 years worth of identified reserves, no one bothers to put money into prospecting for more. There are billions of tons of lithium in the earth's crust, it just needs someone to go looking for the heavier deposits. If battery demand increases, and the current reserves start to get a bit short, we'll soon see new deposits identified. A good example is oil and gas. Back in the 70s it was announced that there was only 30 years worth of reserves left, and that it was time to panic. Some 50 years later, the global reserves now stand at about 50 years worth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the climate impact of manufacturing one billion electric cars to replace the same number of ICE on the worlds roads, and the global charging infrastructure required, add the scrapage costs of a billion vehicles that may still have a 10-15-20 year useful life. A lot of rhetoric on the minor details faced by users but what net benefit will the planet gain from this new transport. No one is talking about manufacturing new cars specifically to replace existing working cars. So you don't need to worry. What is the purpose of changing to EV if the gains are not there?" I thought you'd know! It's a fucking gimmick.. an opportunity to take advantage of people concerned with the environment.. Lick their fingers and count the money they make by fucking the planet even more. The problem is these fat cat arseholes don't give a shit about fucking the planet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. What is the actual gain from owning an EV? Jury out on that Tyre particulate emissions are up to 1800 times more than ICE exhaust emissions, which puts the green agenda for vehicles into perspective. " How? As far as I am aware the major thing about EVs is not so we switch Tyre particulate emissions. It's the classic thing of pointing out a supposed gotcha that undermines the overall picture. The benefit is reducing the emission of fossil fuels that make up 30% of overall emissions. Also reducing the cost of your commute to pennies rather than pounds, long distances are far cheaper than ice equivalent . Yes you have to stop but here are few people who can (bladder/safety) drive for 4 hours anyway. The supposed drawbacks from the usual suspects are not experienced by the people who actually own the cars in the real world. If people want more info on mythbusting then the guardian are running a series looking at the supposed drawbacks and if they are true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "A lot of cars now can cope with 250kw/ 350 kw charging…. A lot are future proofing where they could take 400/800kw…." "For example Tesla are now putting in the 350kw v2 superchargers… but there are no cars that actually charge at that speed yet" Which one is it Fabio? Those 2 statements contradict each other. " Not quite….probably not doing the best job of explaining… let me try again 1) the high end Tesla model s cars can charge at 250kw…. With new battery improvements they expect future cars to be able to charge at faster/greater speeds… Speaking of which 2) Kia/hyundai share battery platforms where cars could theoretically charge at the 400/800kw … (so whether it’s a Kia ev5/ev9 or an Hyundai ioniq 5/6…. It basically a different car shells placed upon the same battery structure.. and just mess around with things just as the size) but the infrastructure is not in place for public chargers at the moment they bad limit them… (for example shells public chargers are 175kw at the moment… so it wouldn’t matter if a Kia pulled up to one, that’s the fastest it’s going to charge regardless) Basically at the moment some cars are limited by charging speed and other cars can’t get near a potential chargers max output (the original Nissan leafs could only draw at 60kw max…. Renault Zoe’s at 75kw) It’s almost looking at it in the same way we looked at broadband speeds back in the day… remember when had 64mb..then jumped to 128/256/512/1gb.. and we all went wow cause you noticed how thing took a lot less time to download, and now we all kinda take it for granted! In effect it’s the same thing happening…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. What is the actual gain from owning an EV? Quieter, cleaner, more refined drive. Downside as is being alluded to on this thread that the charging technology is not yet available to charge every car quickly. We will buy a plug in hybrid next year when our car is up for renewing. The plug in charge will cope with all of our local journeys and the engine will be useful for the very long journeys that we need to make probably a dozen or so times each year. Been reading up on the latest Prius (5th generation) that is scheduled to arrive in Europe later this year and it looks fantastic - design, spec, performance and versatility. " I have had my 3rd gen Prius for 8 years now.. and still love it I think this is I am ready to go from hybrid to a full ev….the annoying thing for me is that for example if the uk offered the same federal grant as the us did… i could just about afford it but at the moment it’s probably outside my comfortable range (waiting on interest rates to come down… different subject!!!lol) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "A lot of cars now can cope with 250kw/ 350 kw charging…. A lot are future proofing where they could take 400/800kw…." "For example Tesla are now putting in the 350kw v2 superchargers… but there are no cars that actually charge at that speed yet" Which one is it Fabio? Those 2 statements contradict each other. Not quite….probably not doing the best job of explaining… let me try again 1) the high end Tesla model s cars can charge at 250kw…. With new battery improvements they expect future cars to be able to charge at faster/greater speeds… Speaking of which 2) Kia/hyundai share battery platforms where cars could theoretically charge at the 400/800kw … (so whether it’s a Kia ev5/ev9 or an Hyundai ioniq 5/6…. It basically a different car shells placed upon the same battery structure.. and just mess around with things just as the size) but the infrastructure is not in place for public chargers at the moment they bad limit them… (for example shells public chargers are 175kw at the moment… so it wouldn’t matter if a Kia pulled up to one, that’s the fastest it’s going to charge regardless) Basically at the moment some cars are limited by charging speed and other cars can’t get near a potential chargers max output (the original Nissan leafs could only draw at 60kw max…. Renault Zoe’s at 75kw) It’s almost looking at it in the same way we looked at broadband speeds back in the day… remember when had 64mb..then jumped to 128/256/512/1gb.. and we all went wow cause you noticed how thing took a lot less time to download, and now we all kinda take it for granted! In effect it’s the same thing happening…." Well isn't that the whole point... The infrastructure isn't available. Until it is, people will not change en masse. The broadband analogy isn't the best, when broadband was introduced, it had clear advantages over dial up. Speed and not taking up the phone line are the 2 that stand out. At present EVs have no clear advantage over ICE. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"London assembly says ULEZ is a very targeted scheme, and only affects a small minority of drivers. Around 200,000 out of the around 2.3 million vehicles seen driving in London on an average day are non-compliant. Khans proposes to send non compliant scrapped vehicles to Ukraine, a great idea as they need the vehicles, but increasing their carbon footprint. Paris accord is a global agreement, but the use of carbon credits does not help the cause. " Don’t get me started on the Paris accord… it’s actually a useless piece of paper in that every basically set their own target, and there is no penalty if they don’t hit it….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. What is the actual gain from owning an EV? Quieter, cleaner, more refined drive. Downside as is being alluded to on this thread that the charging technology is not yet available to charge every car quickly. We will buy a plug in hybrid next year when our car is up for renewing. The plug in charge will cope with all of our local journeys and the engine will be useful for the very long journeys that we need to make probably a dozen or so times each year. Been reading up on the latest Prius (5th generation) that is scheduled to arrive in Europe later this year and it looks fantastic - design, spec, performance and versatility. I have had my 3rd gen Prius for 8 years now.. and still love it I think this is I am ready to go from hybrid to a full ev….the annoying thing for me is that for example if the uk offered the same federal grant as the us did… i could just about afford it but at the moment it’s probably outside my comfortable range (waiting on interest rates to come down… different subject!!!lol)" Do you buy the green agenda thought?.. I don't due to the mining for lithium pollution and carbon emissions associated with it , car production carbon emissions and extra car weight that damages roads and increases tyre wear | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reported that once EVs dominate the global car market, there's about 70 years' worth of lithium until the identified global reserves are themselves depleted. After that, we'd have to turn to pulling lithium from the sea, which is a much more expensive proposition. " Mobile phones use way more lithium than cars do… so are you going to stop using your smartphone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reported that once EVs dominate the global car market, there's about 70 years' worth of lithium until the identified global reserves are themselves depleted. After that, we'd have to turn to pulling lithium from the sea, which is a much more expensive proposition. The key word there is 'identified'. When there's 70 years worth of identified reserves, no one bothers to put money into prospecting for more. There are billions of tons of lithium in the earth's crust, it just needs someone to go looking for the heavier deposits. If battery demand increases, and the current reserves start to get a bit short, we'll soon see new deposits identified. A good example is oil and gas. Back in the 70s it was announced that there was only 30 years worth of reserves left, and that it was time to panic. Some 50 years later, the global reserves now stand at about 50 years worth." and for that reason the economically viable reserves will be consumed in one way or another . The idea that every country will leave viable oil reserves in the ground for ever is laughable . I don't see China stopping coal production | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the climate impact of manufacturing one billion electric cars to replace the same number of ICE on the worlds roads, and the global charging infrastructure required, add the scrapage costs of a billion vehicles that may still have a 10-15-20 year useful life. A lot of rhetoric on the minor details faced by users but what net benefit will the planet gain from this new transport. No one is talking about manufacturing new cars specifically to replace existing working cars. So you don't need to worry. What is the purpose of changing to EV if the gains are not there? I thought you'd know! It's a fucking gimmick.. an opportunity to take advantage of people concerned with the environment.. Lick their fingers and count the money they make by fucking the planet even more. The problem is these fat cat arseholes don't give a shit about fucking the planet" I'm in semi agreement, when we get to full agreement the world will be at peace 
However, the fat cats of the car industry will be making the same $$ regardless, the real winner is the west who will no longer be shackled to the middle east.
The end of fossil fuels has far reaching effects, me thinks... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read somewhere that you should not recharge an electric car battery more than 80 % routinely or let it fall below 20% to preserve battery life. If correct this constant repeated statement about available mileage is misleading " That's true for some battery chemistries, and not for others. The industry is moving away from those mixtures that fail early, but they're adopting new mixtures that haven't been tested over years and might turn out to have that problem. All of which means that it's almost impossible to tell whether your specific vehicle would benefit from 80/20 charging or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. At the moment I don't need to think about fuel. Every few weeks a little light comes on to tell me that I only have another hundred miles, I look out for a filling station, and 5 minutes later the car is full again and I don't need to think about it for another few weeks. Getting an EV means adding a whole new worry to my life. I need to keep track of charge, and make sure that I have enough time to make my journey and include a 40 minute break in the middle for charging. And my regular 400 mile drives up and down the country would take 80 minutes longer as I'll have to charge before I leave, and then charge again when that runs out short of my destination. I realise that I'm not a standard driver, having no ability to charge at home or at work, and needing to do regular long journeys, but I'm not exactly unique. I find standing at the diesel pump for 3 minutes a tedious interruption to my journey. Having to take a 40 minute break would be just intolerable." I agree. The EV tech needs to offer something better and more convenient than current ICE. Earlier you talked about space at “Petrol” stations and of course length of time to charge. To justify 40 mins of charging instead if 5 mins filling, the range of EVs on a charge needs to dramatically increase (so you need to charge less often). People with driveways are fine but people in flats (and converted terraced houses) have no option. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
) needs this afternoon.
So even electric cars are still reliant on fossil fuel power, albeit whilst avoiding paying tax as fuel duty, road fund licence and now VAT apparently.
Our largesse knows no bounds. You would have expected that if evs were better and more cost effective than ice, people wouldn't need these tax avoidance measures normally eschewed and abhorred by those left of centre.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wind generated electricity has slipped to 11% of our current ( ) needs this afternoon.
So even electric cars are still reliant on fossil fuel power, albeit whilst avoiding paying tax as fuel duty, road fund licence and now VAT apparently.
Our largesse knows no bounds. You would have expected that if evs were better and more cost effective than ice, people wouldn't need these tax avoidance measures normally eschewed and abhorred by those left of centre. "What has owning/running an EV or being informative of the pros and cons got to do with being left of centre?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read somewhere that you should not recharge an electric car battery more than 80 % routinely or let it fall below 20% to preserve battery life. If correct this constant repeated statement about available mileage is misleading That's true for some battery chemistries, and not for others. The industry is moving away from those mixtures that fail early, but they're adopting new mixtures that haven't been tested over years and might turn out to have that problem. All of which means that it's almost impossible to tell whether your specific vehicle would benefit from 80/20 charging or not." It is a conundrum that could lead to very expensive bills and losses... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once the lower end EV’s start coming out… for example the MG4 has outperformed sales wise more than most people would expect.. but it’s still a 26k car! " Do NOT ever buy a modern MG car! They're cheap Chinese made crap. Owned one ourselves and the timing chain inside the engine died in under 34,000 miles. Avoid like the plague, there's a reason you don't see many on the roads older than 5 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wind generated electricity has slipped to 11% of our current ( ) needs this afternoon.
So even electric cars are still reliant on fossil fuel power, albeit whilst avoiding paying tax as fuel duty, road fund licence and now VAT apparently.
Our largesse knows no bounds. You would have expected that if evs were better and more cost effective than ice, people wouldn't need these tax avoidance measures normally eschewed and abhorred by those left of centre.
What has owning/running an EV or being informative of the pros and cons got to do with being left of centre? "You have misread my post. It is the acceptance tax avoidance measures enjoyed by those able to afford an ev that I find surprising. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has owning/running an EV or being informative of the pros and cons got to do with being left of centre? " Because of how the problem has been tackled. It's been hijacked by greedy capitilstic players making a fast £ out of people's concerns about the environment, causing more pollution in providing a "solution" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wind generated electricity has slipped to 11% of our current ( ) needs this afternoon.
So even electric cars are still reliant on fossil fuel power, albeit whilst avoiding paying tax as fuel duty, road fund licence and now VAT apparently.
Our largesse knows no bounds. You would have expected that if evs were better and more cost effective than ice, people wouldn't need these tax avoidance measures normally eschewed and abhorred by those left of centre.
What has owning/running an EV or being informative of the pros and cons got to do with being left of centre?
You have misread my post. It is the acceptance tax avoidance measures enjoyed by those able to afford an ev that I find surprising."And this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wind generated electricity has slipped to 11% of our current ( ) needs this afternoon.
So even electric cars are still reliant on fossil fuel power, albeit whilst avoiding paying tax as fuel duty, road fund licence and now VAT apparently.
Our largesse knows no bounds. You would have expected that if evs were better and more cost effective than ice, people wouldn't need these tax avoidance measures normally eschewed and abhorred by those left of centre.
What has owning/running an EV or being informative of the pros and cons got to do with being left of centre?
You have misread my post. It is the acceptance tax avoidance measures enjoyed by those able to afford an ev that I find surprising.
And this "the government are trying to accelerate getting a critical mass out there. Subsidies and tax breaks are their only way. Whether you agree this is right may depend on views on how much we should be doing to accelerate reduced CO2 etc. (And debating greeneaa btoday is only half the issue. EV is at the start of a boom, it should get better. Just like broadband etc) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wind generated electricity has slipped to 11% of our current ( ) needs this afternoon.
So even electric cars are still reliant on fossil fuel power, albeit whilst avoiding paying tax as fuel duty, road fund licence and now VAT apparently.
Our largesse knows no bounds. You would have expected that if evs were better and more cost effective than ice, people wouldn't need these tax avoidance measures normally eschewed and abhorred by those left of centre.
What has owning/running an EV or being informative of the pros and cons got to do with being left of centre?
You have misread my post. It is the acceptance tax avoidance measures enjoyed by those able to afford an ev that I find surprising.
And this the government are trying to accelerate getting a critical mass out there. Subsidies and tax breaks are their only way. Whether you agree this is right may depend on views on how much we should be doing to accelerate reduced CO2 etc. (And debating greeneaa btoday is only half the issue. EV is at the start of a boom, it should get better. Just like broadband etc)"EV development and production is smoke and mirrors.. same or more carbon outputs, just in a different location. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wind generated electricity has slipped to 11% of our current ( ) needs this afternoon.
So even electric cars are still reliant on fossil fuel power, albeit whilst avoiding paying tax as fuel duty, road fund licence and now VAT apparently.
Our largesse knows no bounds. You would have expected that if evs were better and more cost effective than ice, people wouldn't need these tax avoidance measures normally eschewed and abhorred by those left of centre.
What has owning/running an EV or being informative of the pros and cons got to do with being left of centre?
You have misread my post. It is the acceptance tax avoidance measures enjoyed by those able to afford an ev that I find surprising.
And this the government are trying to accelerate getting a critical mass out there. Subsidies and tax breaks are their only way. Whether you agree this is right may depend on views on how much we should be doing to accelerate reduced CO2 etc. (And debating greeneaa btoday is only half the issue. EV is at the start of a boom, it should get better. Just like broadband etc)
EV development and production is smoke and mirrors.. same or more carbon outputs, just in a different location."Absolutely correct. Windmills this evening producing just 10% of our needs. Imagine how many windmills we would need if we all could afford an ev and a heat pump. gridwatch.co.U.K. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A fully electric car is out of the question for us considering our driving profile, but next time round (2025) we might look at getting a hybrid. I just don’t see the technology and required infrastructure being in place any time soon to make fully electric feasible enough for the country to embrace it. I do think maybe the next Government should do more to bring down speed limits on local roads so as to encourage more people onto bicycles and also bring in some proactive regulations to encourage personal electric vehicles (scooters, karts etc) on to roads where vulnerability has been reduced because of reduced speed limits." I would love a hybrid van to replace my VW Caddy but there is nothing on the market it seems to be a big hole.. As for reducing speed limits I do hope you not thinking of reducing the 20 mph area we have. But across the country if we changed from MPH to Kmh it would be an easy reduction and no sinage to change... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? " People have begun realising electric cars aren't making a difference. Children in Africa mine the cobalt etc. They can't make the long journeys in the uk they wish. Battery lifes arent what were promised. Electricity wasn't as cheap as promised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67890627 So sales are falling, why? So Government being lobbied for a vat cut, justified? People have begun realising electric cars aren't making a difference. Children in Africa mine the cobalt etc. They can't make the long journeys in the uk they wish. Battery lifes arent what were promised. Electricity wasn't as cheap as promised." The cobolt thing is now a fallacy as most car manufacturers use LFP batteries rather the Li-on, LFP batteries don’t use cobolt in production | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A fully electric car is out of the question for us considering our driving profile, but next time round (2025) we might look at getting a hybrid. I just don’t see the technology and required infrastructure being in place any time soon to make fully electric feasible enough for the country to embrace it. I do think maybe the next Government should do more to bring down speed limits on local roads so as to encourage more people onto bicycles and also bring in some proactive regulations to encourage personal electric vehicles (scooters, karts etc) on to roads where vulnerability has been reduced because of reduced speed limits. I would love a hybrid van to replace my VW Caddy but there is nothing on the market it seems to be a big hole.. As for reducing speed limits I do hope you not thinking of reducing the 20 mph area we have. But across the country if we changed from MPH to Kmh it would be an easy reduction and no sinage to change... " Possibly. I have seen other countries take up the use of personal electric vehicles and I think maybe we are a bit behind the curve with that. One reason is that the Government doesn’t seem interested in proactively regulating the use of personal EV’s and secondly given the attitude of many motorists to cyclists and the current high speed limits I don’t think people would gravitate towards personal EV’s due to vulnerability. Personal EV’s can be part of the solution and would be a relatively cheap way to get people out of ICE vehicles when they only use them for commuting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A fully electric car is out of the question for us considering our driving profile, but next time round (2025) we might look at getting a hybrid. I just don’t see the technology and required infrastructure being in place any time soon to make fully electric feasible enough for the country to embrace it. I do think maybe the next Government should do more to bring down speed limits on local roads so as to encourage more people onto bicycles and also bring in some proactive regulations to encourage personal electric vehicles (scooters, karts etc) on to roads where vulnerability has been reduced because of reduced speed limits. I would love a hybrid van to replace my VW Caddy but there is nothing on the market it seems to be a big hole.. As for reducing speed limits I do hope you not thinking of reducing the 20 mph area we have. But across the country if we changed from MPH to Kmh it would be an easy reduction and no sinage to change... Possibly. I have seen other countries take up the use of personal electric vehicles and I think maybe we are a bit behind the curve with that. One reason is that the Government doesn’t seem interested in proactively regulating the use of personal EV’s and secondly given the attitude of many motorists to cyclists and the current high speed limits I don’t think people would gravitate towards personal EV’s due to vulnerability. Personal EV’s can be part of the solution and would be a relatively cheap way to get people out of ICE vehicles when they only use them for commuting." Which countries are we “behind the curve” on? Given that there are what about 190 countries on the planet, which ones are ahead of us and which behind? I think I visited about six countries last year and frankly there were no electric cars anywhere, aside from in the US, where there were nowhere near as many as I expected. What is the economic advantage to the UK in its population being at the forefront of buying overpriced cars that reduce personal productivity and which have limited longevity? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why does it say on the topic list the last post was by Morley but when you click in it is Fabio?" Probably mods have removed Morleys post, not sure why because it wasn't even that bad but did say Fabio had '' about things (I'm not writing it in fear of a ban ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why does it say on the topic list the last post was by Morley but when you click in it is Fabio? Probably mods have removed Morleys post, not sure why because it wasn't even that bad but did say Fabio had '' about things (I'm not writing it in fear of a ban )"Oh ok I just assumed that would be reflected in the thread list too! Confused me. Easily done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why does it say on the topic list the last post was by Morley but when you click in it is Fabio? Probably mods have removed Morleys post, not sure why because it wasn't even that bad but did say Fabio had '' about things (I'm not writing it in fear of a ban )
Oh ok I just assumed that would be reflected in the thread list too! Confused me. Easily done "Short answer… I said most EVs now use LFP as opposed to li-on batteries, where LFP batteries don’t use cobolt… He disagreed and followed it with a minor insult (just couldn’t help himself…. I’m surprised it got removed as well) Anyway in the grand scheme of things the largest users of both lithium and cobalt are actually mobile phone makers! But the cobolt argument is only ever brought up in relation to EV’s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A fully electric car is out of the question for us considering our driving profile, but next time round (2025) we might look at getting a hybrid. I just don’t see the technology and required infrastructure being in place any time soon to make fully electric feasible enough for the country to embrace it. I do think maybe the next Government should do more to bring down speed limits on local roads so as to encourage more people onto bicycles and also bring in some proactive regulations to encourage personal electric vehicles (scooters, karts etc) on to roads where vulnerability has been reduced because of reduced speed limits. I would love a hybrid van to replace my VW Caddy but there is nothing on the market it seems to be a big hole.. As for reducing speed limits I do hope you not thinking of reducing the 20 mph area we have. But across the country if we changed from MPH to Kmh it would be an easy reduction and no sinage to change... Possibly. I have seen other countries take up the use of personal electric vehicles and I think maybe we are a bit behind the curve with that. One reason is that the Government doesn’t seem interested in proactively regulating the use of personal EV’s and secondly given the attitude of many motorists to cyclists and the current high speed limits I don’t think people would gravitate towards personal EV’s due to vulnerability. Personal EV’s can be part of the solution and would be a relatively cheap way to get people out of ICE vehicles when they only use them for commuting. Which countries are we “behind the curve” on? Given that there are what about 190 countries on the planet, which ones are ahead of us and which behind? I think I visited about six countries last year and frankly there were no electric cars anywhere, aside from in the US, where there were nowhere near as many as I expected. What is the economic advantage to the UK in its population being at the forefront of buying overpriced cars that reduce personal productivity and which have limited longevity?" I am talking about personal EV’s - electric scooters, karts, buggies and similar. These are things that can be charged in a hallway, kitchen, back yard or garden but they are currently illegal to use on the roads in the U.K. I am surprised that the Government has not seen the potential of these vehicles which are very viable now that there are advanced battery systems available. It just needs a willing Government to slow everyone else down to reduce vulnerability and people will naturally gravitate to less expensive, more practical personal vehicles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A fully electric car is out of the question for us considering our driving profile, but next time round (2025) we might look at getting a hybrid. I just don’t see the technology and required infrastructure being in place any time soon to make fully electric feasible enough for the country to embrace it. I do think maybe the next Government should do more to bring down speed limits on local roads so as to encourage more people onto bicycles and also bring in some proactive regulations to encourage personal electric vehicles (scooters, karts etc) on to roads where vulnerability has been reduced because of reduced speed limits. I would love a hybrid van to replace my VW Caddy but there is nothing on the market it seems to be a big hole.. As for reducing speed limits I do hope you not thinking of reducing the 20 mph area we have. But across the country if we changed from MPH to Kmh it would be an easy reduction and no sinage to change... Possibly. I have seen other countries take up the use of personal electric vehicles and I think maybe we are a bit behind the curve with that. One reason is that the Government doesn’t seem interested in proactively regulating the use of personal EV’s and secondly given the attitude of many motorists to cyclists and the current high speed limits I don’t think people would gravitate towards personal EV’s due to vulnerability. Personal EV’s can be part of the solution and would be a relatively cheap way to get people out of ICE vehicles when they only use them for commuting. Which countries are we “behind the curve” on? Given that there are what about 190 countries on the planet, which ones are ahead of us and which behind? I think I visited about six countries last year and frankly there were no electric cars anywhere, aside from in the US, where there were nowhere near as many as I expected. What is the economic advantage to the UK in its population being at the forefront of buying overpriced cars that reduce personal productivity and which have limited longevity? I am talking about personal EV’s - electric scooters, karts, buggies and similar. These are things that can be charged in a hallway, kitchen, back yard or garden but they are currently illegal to use on the roads in the U.K. I am surprised that the Government has not seen the potential of these vehicles which are very viable now that there are advanced battery systems available. It just needs a willing Government to slow everyone else down to reduce vulnerability and people will naturally gravitate to less expensive, more practical personal vehicles. " these vehicles need to have proper licensing etc and a review of where they can drive. I agree there's a space (no pun intended) for them, but let loose today could be a nightmare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A fully electric car is out of the question for us considering our driving profile, but next time round (2025) we might look at getting a hybrid. I just don’t see the technology and required infrastructure being in place any time soon to make fully electric feasible enough for the country to embrace it. I do think maybe the next Government should do more to bring down speed limits on local roads so as to encourage more people onto bicycles and also bring in some proactive regulations to encourage personal electric vehicles (scooters, karts etc) on to roads where vulnerability has been reduced because of reduced speed limits. I would love a hybrid van to replace my VW Caddy but there is nothing on the market it seems to be a big hole.. As for reducing speed limits I do hope you not thinking of reducing the 20 mph area we have. But across the country if we changed from MPH to Kmh it would be an easy reduction and no sinage to change... Possibly. I have seen other countries take up the use of personal electric vehicles and I think maybe we are a bit behind the curve with that. One reason is that the Government doesn’t seem interested in proactively regulating the use of personal EV’s and secondly given the attitude of many motorists to cyclists and the current high speed limits I don’t think people would gravitate towards personal EV’s due to vulnerability. Personal EV’s can be part of the solution and would be a relatively cheap way to get people out of ICE vehicles when they only use them for commuting. Which countries are we “behind the curve” on? Given that there are what about 190 countries on the planet, which ones are ahead of us and which behind? I think I visited about six countries last year and frankly there were no electric cars anywhere, aside from in the US, where there were nowhere near as many as I expected. What is the economic advantage to the UK in its population being at the forefront of buying overpriced cars that reduce personal productivity and which have limited longevity? I am talking about personal EV’s - electric scooters, karts, buggies and similar. These are things that can be charged in a hallway, kitchen, back yard or garden but they are currently illegal to use on the roads in the U.K. I am surprised that the Government has not seen the potential of these vehicles which are very viable now that there are advanced battery systems available. It just needs a willing Government to slow everyone else down to reduce vulnerability and people will naturally gravitate to less expensive, more practical personal vehicles. these vehicles need to have proper licensing etc and a review of where they can drive. I agree there's a space (no pun intended) for them, but let loose today could be a nightmare. " Too late, that bags been opened | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The one upside of the EV is that most can't tow caravans. As ICE cars are slowly removed from the road, caravan owners will need to use commercial vehicles. Also, why are insurance costs so high for hybrids and EV's, insurance companies must know something." I have often wondered what will happen to the touring caravan industry in an electric car era . My view is that diesel Cars will be at a premium in the pre owned market as well as diesel vans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The one upside of the EV is that most can't tow caravans. As ICE cars are slowly removed from the road, caravan owners will need to use commercial vehicles. Also, why are insurance costs so high for hybrids and EV's, insurance companies must know something." These is a simple answers for the insurance question 1) they don’t depreciate at as great a speed which means ….. 2) they cost more to replace if needed to be written off as…… 3) there not as great a supply of them…. You can almost think of it as to why automatics have always been more expensive to insure than manual counterparts……. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The one upside of the EV is that most can't tow caravans. As ICE cars are slowly removed from the road, caravan owners will need to use commercial vehicles. Also, why are insurance costs so high for hybrids and EV's, insurance companies must know something. These is a simple answers for the insurance question 1) they don’t depreciate at as great a speed which means ….. 2) they cost more to replace if needed to be written off as…… 3) there not as great a supply of them…. You can almost think of it as to why automatics have always been more expensive to insure than manual counterparts……." I have found the depreciation to be equal if not greater than ICE. Mercedes EQC 75K brand new, 30 - 35K 12 months old | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Electric cars should be mandated to use the same charging connector." They have been for over 9 years (in Europe). "Vehicle to grid capability should be compulsory" That'll make them more expensive, so less attractive. "All car parks should have solar panels as sun shades" Car parks are not huge profit centres. Where will the money come from? How will multi-storey car parks comply? "VAT free heat pumps paid for by doubling VAT on gas boilers" That only works if people continue to buy gas boilers. If they stop doing so (which is what you wanted), then the government won't be able to afford the subsidy to heat pumps. "But the government can't be arsed." It's not that they can't be arsed, it's that the solutions are expensive, and don't address the real problem, which is that our electricity is mostly generated by fossil fuels. What's the point of encouraging people to scrap a whole load of usable equipment and buy a whole load of resource-intensive new stuff, if we're only going to reduce our fossil fuel usage by a small amount? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The one upside of the EV is that most can't tow caravans. As ICE cars are slowly removed from the road, caravan owners will need to use commercial vehicles. Also, why are insurance costs so high for hybrids and EV's, insurance companies must know something. These is a simple answers for the insurance question 1) they don’t depreciate at as great a speed which means ….. 2) they cost more to replace if needed to be written off as…… 3) there not as great a supply of them…. You can almost think of it as to why automatics have always been more expensive to insure than manual counterparts……. I have found the depreciation to be equal if not greater than ICE. Mercedes EQC 75K brand new, 30 - 35K 12 months old" Depending on the mileage on that… if it’s not very high snap that up.. because that would be a bargain! For the rest of us… motorway.. them with the adverts on the television (sell your car the motorway way… damn it’s infected my brain!) do a really good guide to car depreciation on their website, and one especially for electric vehicles…. So have a look….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the government can't be arsed. It's not that they can't be arsed, it's that the solutions are expensive, and don't address the real problem, which is that our electricity is mostly generated by fossil fuels. " Erm. What! Firstly, the government inaction is because they work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry. Secondly, you usually argue tooth and nail against any transition away from electricity generation by any means other then oil, gas and coal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the government can't be arsed. It's not that they can't be arsed, it's that the solutions are expensive, and don't address the real problem, which is that our electricity is mostly generated by fossil fuels. Erm. What! Firstly, the government inaction is because they work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry. Secondly, you usually argue tooth and nail against any transition away from electricity generation by any means other then oil, gas and coal." what government inaction? What examples can we discuss that are centred around the move away from ICE. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the government can't be arsed. It's not that they can't be arsed, it's that the solutions are expensive, and don't address the real problem, which is that our electricity is mostly generated by fossil fuels. Erm. What! Firstly, the government inaction is because they work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry. Secondly, you usually argue tooth and nail against any transition away from electricity generation by any means other then oil, gas and coal. what government inaction? What examples can we discuss that are centred around the move away from ICE." The government inaction that we're discussing in the post I replied to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the government can't be arsed." "It's not that they can't be arsed, it's that the solutions are expensive, and don't address the real problem, which is that our electricity is mostly generated by fossil fuels." "Erm. What! Firstly, the government inaction is because they work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry." Yes, yes, we've heard this one before. "Secondly, you usually argue tooth and nail against any transition away from electricity generation by any means other then oil, gas and coal." Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. In the post above I'm not saying that climate change is important, I'm saying that the poster's proposed 'solutions' are expensive and will achieve almost nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Electric cars should be mandated to use the same charging connector. They have been for over 9 years (in Europe). Vehicle to grid capability should be compulsory That'll make them more expensive, so less attractive. All car parks should have solar panels as sun shades Car parks are not huge profit centres. Where will the money come from? How will multi-storey car parks comply? VAT free heat pumps paid for by doubling VAT on gas boilers That only works if people continue to buy gas boilers. If they stop doing so (which is what you wanted), then the government won't be able to afford the subsidy to heat pumps. But the government can't be arsed. It's not that they can't be arsed, it's that the solutions are expensive, and don't address the real problem, which is that our electricity is mostly generated by fossil fuels. What's the point of encouraging people to scrap a whole load of usable equipment and buy a whole load of resource-intensive new stuff, if we're only going to reduce our fossil fuel usage by a small amount?" It is not a case of scrapping perfectly usable equipment. A significant part of the carbon footprint of an item is in the manufacturing. It is about maximising the resources we have. Insulation makes houses more efficient. Vehicle to grid helps with peak lopping. Solar panels on houses and car parks helps a little if there is storage. Changing the pricing structure for electricity is easy and will change behaviour, reducing gas usage at peak times. Nudging people in a direction gives time to transition in an orderly manner. I believe there are several charge point standards, only one of which supports vehicle to grid. If vehicle to grid was mandatory then the cost would be insignificant Setting fixed dates is unrealistic given the poor infrastructure and current mix of generation fuels however my point was that so much more could be done at low cost if there was joined up long yerm thinking and political will. Neither are currently apparent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. " That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord" That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. " No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back"Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Insulation makes houses more efficient." Agreed. Loft and cavity wall insulation help a lot, and are already heavily promoted and subsidised. "Vehicle to grid helps with peak lopping." Agreed, but it also drains your car's battery, so lots of people will turn that off once they realise. Wouldn't it be better to just build more 'clean' power stations so that peak lopping wasn't necessary? "Solar panels on houses and car parks helps a little if there is storage." But only a tiny bit. The average car parking space would collect about 3kWh per day, which will give the average EV a 5% top-up. Who's going to pay for all those panels and the associated storage, and who will pay extra to park there for such a tiny top-up? "I believe there are several charge point standards, only one of which supports vehicle to grid." There are 3 standards that you'll see at chargers, CHAdeMO, type 2, and CCS. CHAdeMo is there for older cars, they aren't made any more. Type 2 is the EU mandatory minimum standard. CCS is type 2 with extra pins for DC charging. Both CCS and type 2 can do Vehicle to Grid (though type 2 needs an adapter). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why does it say on the topic list the last post was by Morley but when you click in it is Fabio? Probably mods have removed Morleys post, not sure why because it wasn't even that bad but did say Fabio had '' about things (I'm not writing it in fear of a ban )"Yes I proved he was again lying when talking about the batteries. Showed tbe proof and got a ban | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
"I'm not suggesting anything like that... I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future. They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future. "No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here? "You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it. I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over, what is it you want to see? A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here?
You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it.
"Okay, but you seem to go on about it a lot. " I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over, " I don't have a message. " what is it you want to see? " I'd like to see our government, and other governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. Then maybe the government can make policies that benefit British people and policies that will make meaningful change while there is still time. " A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite. " This is a misleading and over simplistic question designed to be unanswerable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here?
You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it.
Okay, but you seem to go on about it a lot.
I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over,
I don't have a message.
what is it you want to see?
I'd like to see our government, and other governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. Then maybe the government can make policies that benefit British people and policies that will make meaningful change while there is still time.
A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite.
This is a misleading and over simplistic question designed to be unanswerable."How should governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies? Are you suggesting they shouldn't tax them? The final question is not misleading if you have an opinion on the matter, in fact I thought that would have been the question you strived to answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here?
You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it.
Okay, but you seem to go on about it a lot.
I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over,
I don't have a message.
what is it you want to see?
I'd like to see our government, and other governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. Then maybe the government can make policies that benefit British people and policies that will make meaningful change while there is still time.
A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite.
This is a misleading and over simplistic question designed to be unanswerable.
How should governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies? Are you suggesting they shouldn't tax them?
The final question is not misleading if you have an opinion on the matter, in fact I thought that would have been the question you strived to answer? "Political donations from corporations should stop, not taxes. The second part of your question, I don't know what you're asking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here?
You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it.
Okay, but you seem to go on about it a lot.
I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over,
I don't have a message.
what is it you want to see?
I'd like to see our government, and other governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. Then maybe the government can make policies that benefit British people and policies that will make meaningful change while there is still time.
A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite.
This is a misleading and over simplistic question designed to be unanswerable.
How should governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies? Are you suggesting they shouldn't tax them?
The final question is not misleading if you have an opinion on the matter, in fact I thought that would have been the question you strived to answer?
Political donations from corporations should stop, not taxes.
The second part of your question, I don't know what you're asking. "2nd part of the question is what do you want to see happen with fossil fuels, how do they get decommissioned, what replaces them and when do you expect that to be in place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here?
You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it.
Okay, but you seem to go on about it a lot.
I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over,
I don't have a message.
what is it you want to see?
I'd like to see our government, and other governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. Then maybe the government can make policies that benefit British people and policies that will make meaningful change while there is still time.
A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite.
This is a misleading and over simplistic question designed to be unanswerable.
How should governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies? Are you suggesting they shouldn't tax them?
The final question is not misleading if you have an opinion on the matter, in fact I thought that would have been the question you strived to answer?
Political donations from corporations should stop, not taxes.
The second part of your question, I don't know what you're asking.
2nd part of the question is what do you want to see happen with fossil fuels, how do they get decommissioned, what replaces them and when do you expect that to be in place?"Firstly, what I want is for our government to prioritise tackling climate change over the fossil fuel companies that donate to them. As a part of that strategy, transitioning off fossil fuels is a major part, but isn't everything. They should be decommissioned by firstly not having more oil and gas licences granted for the north sea. Secondly we should move to nuclear and wind/tidal/wave/biogas/solar, in conjunction with other strategies to reduce energy usage through efficiencies. As for when, sooner than the fossil fuels industry wants, and in enough time to contribute to not heating the planet past the point of no return. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
"Working in my interests would be saving me money and not forcing costly green policies on me with no benefit to the earth or other countries where child labour is heavily used to subsidise Tesla profits and the c02 output is worse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
Working in my interests would be saving me money and not forcing costly green policies on me with no benefit to the earth or other countries where child labour is heavily used to subsidise Tesla profits and the c02 output is worse"Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests? The rest of your post is detached from reality and not worthy of a response. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
Working in my interests would be saving me money and not forcing costly green policies on me with no benefit to the earth or other countries where child labour is heavily used to subsidise Tesla profits and the c02 output is worse
Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?
The rest of your post is detached from reality and not worthy of a response. "The worrying thing is that our useless politicians actually think like you do. The economy is going to be fuelled by fairy dust and unicorn dung. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
Working in my interests would be saving me money and not forcing costly green policies on me with no benefit to the earth or other countries where child labour is heavily used to subsidise Tesla profits and the c02 output is worse
Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?
The rest of your post is detached from reality and not worthy of a response.
The worrying thing is that our useless politicians actually think like you do. The economy is going to be fuelled by fairy dust and unicorn dung.
"When you say "thinks like me" do you mean, understands climate science? Sadly they mostly work for the fossil fuels industry that donate to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?" Nobody is suggesting that the earth will become uninhabitable within Morley's lifetime, so no, it's not in his interest. Indeed, it's not in any of our interests. We're doing it out of altruism in favour of future generations. To be clear, climate policies are, long term, the right thing to do for future generations. None of us will directly benefit from them. That means that if those policies don't actually work, we're all suffering for no reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
Working in my interests would be saving me money and not forcing costly green policies on me with no benefit to the earth or other countries where child labour is heavily used to subsidise Tesla profits and the c02 output is worse
Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?
The rest of your post is detached from reality and not worthy of a response. "Electric cars won't do that. The planet will be habitable if it warmed several degrees and also co2 went to 1000 ppm. I suggest you go read about the history of the earth and particular eras such as the eocene | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
Working in my interests would be saving me money and not forcing costly green policies on me with no benefit to the earth or other countries where child labour is heavily used to subsidise Tesla profits and the c02 output is worse
Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?
The rest of your post is detached from reality and not worthy of a response. "Hmmm The rest of your post is detached from reality and not worthy of a response. I believe I got banned for 5 days flr saying something was a lie and saying it wouldn't engage with some one that couldn't even spell the element they were discussing. I wonder if Johnny will get the same ban for such a clear insult? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
Working in my interests would be saving me money and not forcing costly green policies on me with no benefit to the earth or other countries where child labour is heavily used to subsidise Tesla profits and the c02 output is worse
Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?
The rest of your post is detached from reality and not worthy of a response.
Electric cars won't do that.
"No one has claimed they would. " The planet will be habitable if it warmed several degrees and also co2 went to 1000 ppm. " If it warms several degrees, it will cause a waterfall effect which we won't be able to stop by reducing carbon emissions. " I suggest you go read about the history of the earth and particular eras such as the eocene" What I particular do you want me to read about, and how is this related to climate science denial? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some nice reading ahead for you Johnny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene" What's this got to do with climate science denial? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some nice reading ahead for you Johnny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene What's this got to do with climate science denial?" "Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?" Please read about habitat and previous earth climates. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some nice reading ahead for you Johnny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene What's this got to do with climate science denial?" Another accusation and another name. I got banned for 5 days for calling some one a liar. Is it OK to call some one a climate science denier? @mods? Can we have some consistency? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some nice reading ahead for you Johnny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene What's this got to do with climate science denial? "Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?" Please read about habitat and previous earth climates." *Checks Notes* yep, humans did not exist 30-50 million years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
Working in my interests would be saving me money and not forcing costly green policies on me with no benefit to the earth or other countries where child labour is heavily used to subsidise Tesla profits and the c02 output is worse
Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?
The rest of your post is detached from reality and not worthy of a response.
Electric cars won't do that.
No one has claimed they would.
The planet will be habitable if it warmed several degrees and also co2 went to 1000 ppm.
If it warms several degrees, it will cause a waterfall effect which we won't be able to stop by reducing carbon emissions.
I suggest you go read about the history of the earth and particular eras such as the eocene
What I particular do you want me to read about, and how is this related to climate science denial?
"If it warms several degrees, it will cause a waterfall effect which we won't be able to stop by reducing carbon emissions. Literal ice cores prove this incorrect Please read.about the multiple ice ages and warming period the world has gone through. I have pointed one of these out to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some nice reading ahead for you Johnny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene What's this got to do with climate science denial? "Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?" Please read about habitat and previous earth climates. *Checks Notes* yep, humans did not exist 30-50 million years ago." No they didn't...but humans exist every where on the planet. In regions of much higher temps than areas life lived I tbe eocene era. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some nice reading ahead for you Johnny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene What's this got to do with climate science denial? "Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?" Please read about habitat and previous earth climates. *Checks Notes* yep, humans did not exist 30-50 million years ago. No they didn't...but humans exist every where on the planet. In regions of much higher temps than areas life lived I tbe eocene era." You're confusing weather with climate. And also confusing being in a warm country during the summer, with being alive 50 million years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some nice reading ahead for you Johnny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene What's this got to do with climate science denial? "Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?" Please read about habitat and previous earth climates. *Checks Notes* yep, humans did not exist 30-50 million years ago. No they didn't...but humans exist every where on the planet. In regions of much higher temps than areas life lived I tbe eocene era. You're confusing weather with climate. And also confusing being in a warm country during the summer, with being alive 50 million years ago. " This is the current climate. Anything between both tropics today is hotter than anything above both tropics in tbe eocene. So humans would easily cope. I suggest you read the Wikipedia page. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some nice reading ahead for you Johnny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene What's this got to do with climate science denial? "Is keeping the planet habitable for humans not in your interests?" Please read about habitat and previous earth climates. *Checks Notes* yep, humans did not exist 30-50 million years ago. No they didn't...but humans exist every where on the planet. In regions of much higher temps than areas life lived I tbe eocene era. You're confusing weather with climate. And also confusing being in a warm country during the summer, with being alive 50 million years ago. This is the current climate. " What is the current climate? " Anything between both tropics today is hotter than anything above both tropics in tbe eocene. " Humans didn't exist in the Eocene era. What point are you trying to make bringing this up? " So humans would easily cope. I suggest you read the Wikipedia page." I did, at no point did it claim that humans lived 50 million years ago, at no point did it claim humans could have lived in that era, and at no point did it claim that climate science isn't real. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I believe I got banned for 5 days flr saying something was a lie and saying it wouldn't engage with some one that couldn't even spell the element they were discussing. " You didn't. It is also how people say things than what they say that can lead to a ban. Asking Mods to ban someone on the forum is also bad form. It might be best you stick to not engaging with each other now please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here?
You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it.
Okay, but you seem to go on about it a lot.
I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over,
I don't have a message.
what is it you want to see?
I'd like to see our government, and other governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. Then maybe the government can make policies that benefit British people and policies that will make meaningful change while there is still time.
A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite.
This is a misleading and over simplistic question designed to be unanswerable.
How should governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies? Are you suggesting they shouldn't tax them?
The final question is not misleading if you have an opinion on the matter, in fact I thought that would have been the question you strived to answer?
Political donations from corporations should stop, not taxes.
The second part of your question, I don't know what you're asking.
2nd part of the question is what do you want to see happen with fossil fuels, how do they get decommissioned, what replaces them and when do you expect that to be in place?
Firstly, what I want is for our government to prioritise tackling climate change over the fossil fuel companies that donate to them. As a part of that strategy, transitioning off fossil fuels is a major part, but isn't everything.
They should be decommissioned by firstly not having more oil and gas licences granted for the north sea. Secondly we should move to nuclear and wind/tidal/wave/biogas/solar, in conjunction with other strategies to reduce energy usage through efficiencies.
As for when, sooner than the fossil fuels industry wants, and in enough time to contribute to not heating the planet past the point of no return. "What benefits will be realised for the UK by not awarding new oil and gas licenses? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here?
You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it.
Okay, but you seem to go on about it a lot.
I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over,
I don't have a message.
what is it you want to see?
I'd like to see our government, and other governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. Then maybe the government can make policies that benefit British people and policies that will make meaningful change while there is still time.
A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite.
This is a misleading and over simplistic question designed to be unanswerable.
How should governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies? Are you suggesting they shouldn't tax them?
The final question is not misleading if you have an opinion on the matter, in fact I thought that would have been the question you strived to answer?
Political donations from corporations should stop, not taxes.
The second part of your question, I don't know what you're asking.
2nd part of the question is what do you want to see happen with fossil fuels, how do they get decommissioned, what replaces them and when do you expect that to be in place?
Firstly, what I want is for our government to prioritise tackling climate change over the fossil fuel companies that donate to them. As a part of that strategy, transitioning off fossil fuels is a major part, but isn't everything.
They should be decommissioned by firstly not having more oil and gas licences granted for the north sea. Secondly we should move to nuclear and wind/tidal/wave/biogas/solar, in conjunction with other strategies to reduce energy usage through efficiencies.
As for when, sooner than the fossil fuels industry wants, and in enough time to contribute to not heating the planet past the point of no return.
What benefits will be realised for the UK by not awarding new oil and gas licenses? "Not contributing to climate change and heating the planet, which will create a further refugee crisis, disrupt food supplies, growing seasons etc. plus all the other miriad of issues that climate change would cause. Also longer term cheaper energy, as oil and gas continue to rise in price, and of course these prices are externally set. Why are you so against transitioning away from fossil fuels? Surely the only losers would be oil companies having less profits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here?
You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it.
Okay, but you seem to go on about it a lot.
I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over,
I don't have a message.
what is it you want to see?
I'd like to see our government, and other governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. Then maybe the government can make policies that benefit British people and policies that will make meaningful change while there is still time.
A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite.
This is a misleading and over simplistic question designed to be unanswerable.
How should governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies? Are you suggesting they shouldn't tax them?
The final question is not misleading if you have an opinion on the matter, in fact I thought that would have been the question you strived to answer?
Political donations from corporations should stop, not taxes.
The second part of your question, I don't know what you're asking.
2nd part of the question is what do you want to see happen with fossil fuels, how do they get decommissioned, what replaces them and when do you expect that to be in place?
Firstly, what I want is for our government to prioritise tackling climate change over the fossil fuel companies that donate to them. As a part of that strategy, transitioning off fossil fuels is a major part, but isn't everything.
They should be decommissioned by firstly not having more oil and gas licences granted for the north sea. Secondly we should move to nuclear and wind/tidal/wave/biogas/solar, in conjunction with other strategies to reduce energy usage through efficiencies.
As for when, sooner than the fossil fuels industry wants, and in enough time to contribute to not heating the planet past the point of no return.
What benefits will be realised for the UK by not awarding new oil and gas licenses?
Not contributing to climate change and heating the planet, which will create a further refugee crisis, disrupt food supplies, growing seasons etc. plus all the other miriad of issues that climate change would cause.
Also longer term cheaper energy, as oil and gas continue to rise in price, and of course these prices are externally set.
Why are you so against transitioning away from fossil fuels? Surely the only losers would be oil companies having less profits. "I'm not against transitioning away from fossil fuels, I don't think the vast majority of people understand the risks of the transition and why it needs to be considered and not a knee jerk to influencers who only see fossil fuel usage as the immediate goal. This then leads me onto the timescales, I would not be surprised if we are still using fossil fuels in 50 years from now due to the complexity of the transition. Fossil fuels give us a wide range of essentials, medicines, plastics, fabrics, heat, electric, fertilisers, asphalt and on and on.... We as a country not a world need to know we have all these things transitioned into our everyday lives before we can even think of stopping the fossil fuel industry. When you look at the list I have provided it is a single word list, dig into each one and the extent of the use is enormous and disrupting that supply chain would cripple the country quicker than climate change ever will. Remember I'm not saying we don't need to move away from fossil fuels, we need a realistic plan that people understand and can sign up to, rather than the hot air and the world is going to end tomorrow messages that drive backhanded and imaginary targets that no country will achieve. Cop 28 is fine example of this, I wont mention Greta since she has now gone past her use by date and is looking a little stale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you should turn off your bias and re-read my 'usual' posts. I've never argued that we shouldn't transition away from fossil fuels. I've only argued that we don't have the resources to do it right now, and we don't have the technology to do it in the medium term. That is a sensible and realistic view, we can't simply stop using fossil fuels until we have the resources and infrastructure that will allow sustain us. I think some of the more devote anti fossil fuel people would be happy for us to sit in a dark, cold room singing kumbaya my lord That's right. The priority has to be keeping the fossil fuel industry making its vast profits. No matter what the cost to the environment or British people. No matter the cost
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya, I have no heating lord kumbaya.
That will keep us going until they workout how to enhance renewables to support us! Keep singing at the back
Why are you suggesting that people who want the government to work for our interests instead of the interests of fossil fuel industry are some kind of weird hippies?
I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm suggesting those people who insist on banning fossil fuels immediately, have no real grasp on the realities of moving from the power sources we have today to those we will have in the future.
They have a voice, which isn't worth listening to right now, mainly for the above reasons which adds emotion but very little else to the debate and understanding on how to decommission fossil fuels in the future.
No one on this thread is suggesting banning fossil fuels immediately. So you don't need to worry. Maybe this weird tangent can stop here?
You will see clearly that I'm not worrying about it.
Okay, but you seem to go on about it a lot.
I can't say the same for you though, when it comes to discussing coherently the issues around fossil fuels, you seem to struggle to get your message over,
I don't have a message.
what is it you want to see?
I'd like to see our government, and other governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. Then maybe the government can make policies that benefit British people and policies that will make meaningful change while there is still time.
A slow reduction, a complete ban by when, where is your detail above and beyond your soundbite.
This is a misleading and over simplistic question designed to be unanswerable.
How should governments stop taking money from fossil fuel companies? Are you suggesting they shouldn't tax them?
The final question is not misleading if you have an opinion on the matter, in fact I thought that would have been the question you strived to answer?
Political donations from corporations should stop, not taxes.
The second part of your question, I don't know what you're asking.
2nd part of the question is what do you want to see happen with fossil fuels, how do they get decommissioned, what replaces them and when do you expect that to be in place?
Firstly, what I want is for our government to prioritise tackling climate change over the fossil fuel companies that donate to them. As a part of that strategy, transitioning off fossil fuels is a major part, but isn't everything.
They should be decommissioned by firstly not having more oil and gas licences granted for the north sea. Secondly we should move to nuclear and wind/tidal/wave/biogas/solar, in conjunction with other strategies to reduce energy usage through efficiencies.
As for when, sooner than the fossil fuels industry wants, and in enough time to contribute to not heating the planet past the point of no return.
What benefits will be realised for the UK by not awarding new oil and gas licenses?
Not contributing to climate change and heating the planet, which will create a further refugee crisis, disrupt food supplies, growing seasons etc. plus all the other miriad of issues that climate change would cause.
Also longer term cheaper energy, as oil and gas continue to rise in price, and of course these prices are externally set.
Why are you so against transitioning away from fossil fuels? Surely the only losers would be oil companies having less profits.
I'm not against transitioning away from fossil fuels, I don't think the vast majority of people understand the risks of the transition and why it needs to be considered and not a knee jerk to influencers who only see fossil fuel usage as the immediate goal.
"It's not a knee jerk reaction to influencers. Climate science has been well understood since the 80s. Scientists have been advising that we do something about it for decades. " This then leads me onto the timescales, I would not be surprised if we are still using fossil fuels in 50 years from now due to the complexity of the transition. " 100% but it's not due to complexity. It's due to lack of political will. " Fossil fuels give us a wide range of essentials, medicines, plastics, fabrics, heat, electric, fertilisers, asphalt and on and on.... " Indeed, so the quicker we start to invest in transiting away, the better. " We as a country not a world need to know we have all these things transitioned into our everyday lives before we can even think of stopping the fossil fuel industry. When you look at the list I have provided it is a single word list, dig into each one and the extent of the use is enormous and disrupting that supply chain would cripple the country quicker than climate change ever will. Remember I'm not saying we don't need to move away from fossil fuels, we need a realistic plan that people understand and can sign up to, rather than the hot air and the world is going to end tomorrow messages that drive backhanded and imaginary targets that no country will achieve. Cop 28 is fine example of this, I wont mention Greta since she has now gone past her use by date and is looking a little stale. " The longer we leave it the more expensive it is and the more damaging to the environment. If understand you correctly, you're just saying it'll be hard? Which I completely agree with. But the first step has to be getting the political will to make meaningful change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The longer we leave it the more expensive it is ..." You've got that the wrong way round. Technology always gets cheaper as it gets refined. Early adopters have to pay a premium to be first, and those that are prepared to wait are able to get it much cheaper later on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The longer we leave it the more expensive it is ... You've got that the wrong way round. Technology always gets cheaper as it gets refined. Early adopters have to pay a premium to be first, and those that are prepared to wait are able to get it much cheaper later on." Offset with the price of ever increasing oil and gas while we dither around. Plus as mentioned, there's more to consider than just long term reduction in energy prices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... Going wildly off tangent and in to the realms of la-la land, but can you imagine if an alien civilisation appeared tomorrow and gave us an unknown secret for limitless and free energy, that everyone could easily adopt for little to no cost. Sure, they'd be a period of transition, but if energy costs for the whole planet were eliminated, it certainly would be a very different world indeed for so many reasons." It will certainly upset a lot of people whose only mission in life is to make money off others by selling energy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Great if you're on a journey. Not so great if you're a town driver. There would be no need to buy coffee, stretch you legs or use the restroom. Not so great, I agree, but not insurmountable. Add a little contingency, plan for the eventuality, normalise the operation, and then it becomes second nature and routine. Like everything in life to be fair. What is the actual gain from owning an EV?" Bit late to this one but we have had ours since Nov 22. It’s now covered over 15,000m. Which includes quite a few unplanned trips to London.(450m round trip in a 40kw EV). At approx the same time we went full electric at home as no mains gas here anyway. For us the benefit has not just been the EV but for the home overall with being on an EV tariff & we’ve gone from spending around £200pm in fuel & tax on our car alone to spending £250 to cover everything. We do have an “Old Tech” EV which only charges at 50kw which is inconvenient but the day to day costs of all our sub 140 mile journeys (90%+) all powered from home make up for this ten times over. With utilising our EV tariff properly, load shifting etc we got our unit price for energy for 2023 down to 22.4ppu incl Vat & SC. It’ll be lower this coming year due to higher prices at the beginning of last year & our ASHP not being set up properly for the first few months of use in Jan/Feb. What needs to happen imo is vat on public chargers & their install cost needs to be reduced to 5% or with what is happening from 1st Feb with renewables, home batteries etc. make them vat free. The grid needs massive investment too as we are getting the rapid (200-300kw) chargers out there but many once a few EV’s are charging cut power because the local grid cannot cope. The other issue rearing it’s head is EV charging knowledge & lack of etiquette by those that drive them. Many will sit on a rapid charger to get to 100% but do not seem to know or maybe care that from about 85-90% the charge will slow to protect the battery, sometimes taking as long to get from 80-100% than it did to get from 10-80% & when you are waiting to charge part way through a long journey that’s really fcking annoying when there’s empty 7kw chargers in the same place they could hop on & get the same speed. The other issue is overstaying after the car is full. A rapid will fill most EV’s in little over an hour, yet you see it all the time, someone parked up & gone off to the cinema or a half day shopping etc. Tesla have this covered with automatic overstay fees that start a short time after charging stops. Others need to follow suit toot sweet imo. Not even going to in to why people park ICE cars in charger bays nor why some EV drivers do the same when they do not charge as some things are just so imbecilic they cannot be explained. S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other issue rearing it’s head is EV charging knowledge & lack of etiquette by those that drive them. Many will sit on a rapid charger to get to 100% but do not seem to know or maybe care that from about 85-90% the charge will slow to protect the battery, sometimes taking as long to get from 80-100% than it did to get from 10-80% & when you are waiting to charge part way through a long journey that’s really fcking annoying when there’s empty 7kw chargers in the same place they could hop on & get the same speed. The other issue is overstaying after the car is full. A rapid will fill most EV’s in little over an hour, yet you see it all the time, someone parked up & gone off to the cinema or a half day shopping etc. Tesla have this covered with automatic overstay fees that start a short time after charging stops. Others need to follow suit toot sweet imo. Not even going to in to why people park ICE cars in charger bays nor why some EV drivers do the same when they do not charge as some things are just so imbecilic they cannot be explained. S" I don't drive an EV, but I had no idea this was a thing ? I've seen cars at the EV charger, sure, but I just assumed people park up, put their car on charge for however long it takes (2-3 hours ? no idea) and go off and do their own thing ? Are they really like fuel pumps then, where you go in, juice up and go because someone else is waiting ? I really did think you were paying for the spot AND the electric, so could stay as long as you wish. I am serious, as I said, I don't drive an EV, and I've only ever casually looked at the stay and charge stations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other issue rearing it’s head is EV charging knowledge & lack of etiquette by those that drive them. Many will sit on a rapid charger to get to 100% but do not seem to know or maybe care that from about 85-90% the charge will slow to protect the battery, sometimes taking as long to get from 80-100% than it did to get from 10-80% & when you are waiting to charge part way through a long journey that’s really fcking annoying when there’s empty 7kw chargers in the same place they could hop on & get the same speed. The other issue is overstaying after the car is full. A rapid will fill most EV’s in little over an hour, yet you see it all the time, someone parked up & gone off to the cinema or a half day shopping etc. Tesla have this covered with automatic overstay fees that start a short time after charging stops. Others need to follow suit toot sweet imo. Not even going to in to why people park ICE cars in charger bays nor why some EV drivers do the same when they do not charge as some things are just so imbecilic they cannot be explained. S I don't drive an EV, but I had no idea this was a thing ? I've seen cars at the EV charger, sure, but I just assumed people park up, put their car on charge for however long it takes (2-3 hours ? no idea) and go off and do their own thing ? Are they really like fuel pumps then, where you go in, juice up and go because someone else is waiting ? I really did think you were paying for the spot AND the electric, so could stay as long as you wish. I am serious, as I said, I don't drive an EV, and I've only ever casually looked at the stay and charge stations." There are two types of charge points slow 7kw per hour ones same as you can get for home commonly called destination chargers & rapids that can charge at up to 300kw per hour these really should be for those part way through a journey or for those not staying long. Humans beings humans though many want as much charge while they are there & if that means their EV sits charged in a “Charging Bay” for three hours after its charged instead of only getting 60% charge from a 7kw well that’s just tough titties for anyone else. Believe me it is a thing & it’s only getting worse atm. Luckily our trips to London are now so infrequent we’ll likely have a newer EV before we need to go back regularly. Next one will have faster charging & a range big enough to get to London without needing a charge enroute. As said though, we would never go back to an ICE car. S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we’ve gone from spending around £200pm in fuel & tax on our car alone to spending £250 to cover everything." That reads as though the EV is costing you more to run than your old car. Have I got that right? "As said though, we would never go back to an ICE car." Why not? What would be the bad points about going back to an ICE? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we’ve gone from spending around £200pm in fuel & tax on our car alone to spending £250 to cover everything. That reads as though the EV is costing you more to run than your old car. Have I got that right? Not really, the £250 now covers the EV & our full electric home. Before we’d have £200 for the car, £70 electric for the house & averaged out over a year £200 for heating oil. So we are saving £220 pm overall. I don’t include the lease of the EV because the lease would be the same whether an ICE or EV. As said though, we would never go back to an ICE car. Why not? What would be the bad points about going back to an ICE?" Just really the convenience, as said 90% of our journeys can be done from home charging. So day to day we wake up, do our trips, school, shopping, day out. Come home, plug in & it gets charged overnight ready for the next day. They are also quite addictive if you are not worried about using your range up. You do not need a Tesla. & it’s not about doing a zillion miles per hour in the real world, it’s more about torque & 10-30, 40-60 & the instant torque at any legal speed is fun. My own petrol fix is now covered by my motorcycles & the lawn mower
I will say though if we couldn’t get a charger at home we would not have gone full electric. Public charging in Wales away from the M4 has a long way to go but it is slowly improving.
S
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... They are also quite addictive if you are not worried about using your range up. You do not need a Tesla. & it’s not about doing a zillion miles per hour in the real world, it’s more about torque & 10-30, 40-60 & the instant torque at any legal speed is fun. ... " Something which has crossed my mind is that, with greatly enhanced acceleration performance becoming available, we are likely to see an increase in people acting the arsehole in traffic, at junctions or in roundabouts. Before, it was normally possible to judge how much time one had to join traffic and one could also make some assumptions as to what to expect from certain types of vehicle. Since electric vehicles have come along, you can never be quite sure if someone might suddenly speed up dramatically because they fancy being clever dicks and have the technology to do so. Not a good scene in what is still a mixed ability environment. I can foresee horn blowing getting far more commonplace in what was previously a less confrontational country than many others in the less civilised world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... They are also quite addictive if you are not worried about using your range up. You do not need a Tesla. & it’s not about doing a zillion miles per hour in the real world, it’s more about torque & 10-30, 40-60 & the instant torque at any legal speed is fun. ... Something which has crossed my mind is that, with greatly enhanced acceleration performance becoming available, we are likely to see an increase in people acting the arsehole in traffic, at junctions or in roundabouts. Before, it was normally possible to judge how much time one had to join traffic and one could also make some assumptions as to what to expect from certain types of vehicle. Since electric vehicles have come along, you can never be quite sure if someone might suddenly speed up dramatically because they fancy being clever dicks and have the technology to do so. Not a good scene in what is still a mixed ability environment. I can foresee horn blowing getting far more commonplace in what was previously a less confrontational country than many others in the less civilised world." The simple answer is yes at the beginning… but as per most thing.. I.e shooting off at lights like a madman , ain’t great for the battery .. so you will start to lose in range and the novelty wears off quickly Roundabouts aren’t an issue for judging distances anymore than an ice car, and actually going onto motorways are easier because you can get up to speed quicker I am still looking at getting an EV for my next car, ideally something Tesla model Y like…but we shall see… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There are two types of charge points slow 7kw per hour ones same as you can get for home commonly called destination chargers & rapids that can charge at up to 300kw per hour these really should be for those part way through a journey or for those not staying long. Humans beings humans though many want as much charge while they are there & if that means their EV sits charged in a “Charging Bay” for three hours after its charged instead of only getting 60% charge from a 7kw well that’s just tough titties for anyone else. Believe me it is a thing & it’s only getting worse atm. Luckily our trips to London are now so infrequent we’ll likely have a newer EV before we need to go back regularly. Next one will have faster charging & a range big enough to get to London without needing a charge enroute. As said though, we would never go back to an ICE car. S" Thank you for the explanation. I don't know if it's a silly question but if there are 2 types of chargers, 7kw for home, and 300kw out and about, a. That seems a massive disparity between the two b. Can't domestic home chargers be 300kw as well ? . I'm not very up on electric supply to homes, but I assume it's just a big fat pipe of a gazillion volts running down the street with spurs off to houses or factories or what not. I assume my spur is a standard one, but the factory at the end of the road has 3 or 4 spurs or a larger spur or something like that ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even at the lower end of the market I couldn't afford one. I doubt I'm alone." Same for me, although the main issue I have is, nowhere to charge it as I don't have off street parking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even at the lower end of the market I couldn't afford one. I doubt I'm alone. Same for me, although the main issue I have is, nowhere to charge it as I don't have off street parking. " Same. I'm on the 17th floor. We've a communal car park, but no way to put a charging point in my bay without it being separately metered, which would mean anyone could use it and I'd pick up the bill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know if it's a silly question but if there are 2 types of chargers, 7kw for home, and 300kw out and about, a. That seems a massive disparity between the two b. Can't domestic home chargers be 300kw as well ? . I'm not very up on electric supply to homes, but I assume it's just a big fat pipe of a gazillion volts running down the street with spurs off to houses or factories or what not. I assume my spur is a standard one, but the factory at the end of the road has 3 or 4 spurs or a larger spur or something like that ?" Not a silly question. Most people have no idea whether 300kW is a lot or a little. The electric cables that run down the street are at 240V. Houses, shops, offices, and most factories all get 240V. The factory will get 3 different 240V lines that combine to make 415V (it's complicated). But the voltage is not the limiting factor, it's the current that matters. Old houses have supply cables that can cope with 60Amps, middle-aged houses can have 80A, and newer houses have 100A. That works out to a maximum of (roughly) 15kW, 20kW, or 25kW. Inside your house, the wiring is rated for a maximum of 30A, and that gives you 7.5kW. if you want your car charger to be installed by your local friendly electrician, if can't take more power than 7.5kW. You can of course get a 300kW charger at home if you want one, but you'll need to pay the grid company to connect it, and they'll need to run a new supply cable for you, probably all the way from the local sub-station. That will not be cheap. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you get them with solar panels incorporated in the roof of the car to help maintain battery charge whilst driving?" No. The amount of energy gathered by car roof mounted solar panels is barely enough to power up the dashboard of an EV. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know if it's a silly question but if there are 2 types of chargers, 7kw for home, and 300kw out and about, a. That seems a massive disparity between the two b. Can't domestic home chargers be 300kw as well ? . I'm not very up on electric supply to homes, but I assume it's just a big fat pipe of a gazillion volts running down the street with spurs off to houses or factories or what not. I assume my spur is a standard one, but the factory at the end of the road has 3 or 4 spurs or a larger spur or something like that ? Not a silly question. Most people have no idea whether 300kW is a lot or a little. The electric cables that run down the street are at 240V. Houses, shops, offices, and most factories all get 240V. The factory will get 3 different 240V lines that combine to make 415V (it's complicated). But the voltage is not the limiting factor, it's the current that matters. Old houses have supply cables that can cope with 60Amps, middle-aged houses can have 80A, and newer houses have 100A. That works out to a maximum of (roughly) 15kW, 20kW, or 25kW. Inside your house, the wiring is rated for a maximum of 30A, and that gives you 7.5kW. if you want your car charger to be installed by your local friendly electrician, if can't take more power than 7.5kW. You can of course get a 300kW charger at home if you want one, but you'll need to pay the grid company to connect it, and they'll need to run a new supply cable for you, probably all the way from the local sub-station. That will not be cheap." I quoted a new build for a main dealership beginning of last year, they wanted around 8 charger points all around the parking lot. Based on where they were to be located the cable runs were ridiculous, but at least, in theory, from the new onside incoming supply. We couldn't get the price under £225k, despite the developers telling us they could get it cheaper. OK, go on then. And they did. And it doesn't work. The successful contractor undersized the cabling infrastructure for the charger points. (We also pointed out the new supply they'd requested from the DNO was undersized for our design) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We couldn't get the price under £225k, despite the developers telling us they could get it cheaper. OK, go on then. And they did. And it doesn't work. The successful contractor undersized the cabling infrastructure for the charger points. (We also pointed out the new supply they'd requested from the DNO was undersized for our design) " Oh dear indeed ! You know, for that sort of money, couldn't they have just had some really good solar panels on their roof, which discharge to some banks of Tesla Storage Batteries (15K a pop?). I'm guessing it would have been a lot cheaper than 225K, with the added benefit the solar power generated would have been free, too ! A project that pays for itself over a period of time had got to be better than giving money to the energy company in perpetuity ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a silly question. Most people have no idea whether 300kW is a lot or a little. The electric cables that run down the street are at 240V. Houses, shops, offices, and most factories all get 240V. The factory will get 3 different 240V lines that combine to make 415V (it's complicated). But the voltage is not the limiting factor, it's the current that matters. Old houses have supply cables that can cope with 60Amps, middle-aged houses can have 80A, and newer houses have 100A. That works out to a maximum of (roughly) 15kW, 20kW, or 25kW. Inside your house, the wiring is rated for a maximum of 30A, and that gives you 7.5kW. if you want your car charger to be installed by your local friendly electrician, if can't take more power than 7.5kW. You can of course get a 300kW charger at home if you want one, but you'll need to pay the grid company to connect it, and they'll need to run a new supply cable for you, probably all the way from the local sub-station. That will not be cheap." Thank you for the explanation, makes a lot of sense now. When you said "The factory will get 3 different 240V lines that combine to make 415V (it's complicated)" is that what is meant by 3-phase ? I have heard the term but didn't know what it meant specifically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a silly question. Most people have no idea whether 300kW is a lot or a little. The electric cables that run down the street are at 240V. Houses, shops, offices, and most factories all get 240V. The factory will get 3 different 240V lines that combine to make 415V (it's complicated). But the voltage is not the limiting factor, it's the current that matters. Old houses have supply cables that can cope with 60Amps, middle-aged houses can have 80A, and newer houses have 100A. That works out to a maximum of (roughly) 15kW, 20kW, or 25kW. Inside your house, the wiring is rated for a maximum of 30A, and that gives you 7.5kW. if you want your car charger to be installed by your local friendly electrician, if can't take more power than 7.5kW. You can of course get a 300kW charger at home if you want one, but you'll need to pay the grid company to connect it, and they'll need to run a new supply cable for you, probably all the way from the local sub-station. That will not be cheap. Thank you for the explanation, makes a lot of sense now. When you said "The factory will get 3 different 240V lines that combine to make 415V (it's complicated)" is that what is meant by 3-phase ? I have heard the term but didn't know what it meant specifically." I know MrD will be back to answer you, but yes, that would be 3-phase. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you get them with solar panels incorporated in the roof of the car to help maintain battery charge whilst driving? No. The amount of energy gathered by car roof mounted solar panels is barely enough to power up the dashboard of an EV." Perhaps the general paucity of scientific knowledge in the community is one of the reasons why it is comparatively easy to sell people dreams? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a silly question. Most people have no idea whether 300kW is a lot or a little. The electric cables that run down the street are at 240V. Houses, shops, offices, and most factories all get 240V. The factory will get 3 different 240V lines that combine to make 415V (it's complicated). But the voltage is not the limiting factor, it's the current that matters. Old houses have supply cables that can cope with 60Amps, middle-aged houses can have 80A, and newer houses have 100A. That works out to a maximum of (roughly) 15kW, 20kW, or 25kW. Inside your house, the wiring is rated for a maximum of 30A, and that gives you 7.5kW. if you want your car charger to be installed by your local friendly electrician, if can't take more power than 7.5kW. You can of course get a 300kW charger at home if you want one, but you'll need to pay the grid company to connect it, and they'll need to run a new supply cable for you, probably all the way from the local sub-station. That will not be cheap. Thank you for the explanation, makes a lot of sense now. When you said "The factory will get 3 different 240V lines that combine to make 415V (it's complicated)" is that what is meant by 3-phase ? I have heard the term but didn't know what it meant specifically. I know MrD will be back to answer you, but yes, that would be 3-phase. " All cables feeding electricity from sub stations are 3 phase, neutral and earth, the cable feeding a house or flat is from a 3 phase neutral and earth supply cable they just use 1 240 volt phase the neutral and earth, if you ever had a power cut and the houses up the street still have electricity they are connected to a different phase on the same supply cable running up the street. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We couldn't get the price under £225k, despite the developers telling us they could get it cheaper. OK, go on then. And they did. And it doesn't work. The successful contractor undersized the cabling infrastructure for the charger points. (We also pointed out the new supply they'd requested from the DNO was undersized for our design) Oh dear indeed ! You know, for that sort of money, couldn't they have just had some really good solar panels on their roof, which discharge to some banks of Tesla Storage Batteries (15K a pop?). I'm guessing it would have been a lot cheaper than 225K, with the added benefit the solar power generated would have been free, too ! A project that pays for itself over a period of time had got to be better than giving money to the energy company in perpetuity ?" Solar panels in the UK are not great at consistent charging. I was talking to someone who installs commercial panels and there is a lot more to them than I thought. To increase the panels efficiencies, he was saying they use motors that tilt the panels and change the angles throughout the day and the year, and it costs a lot to do that apparently, and he was still not convinced the cost was bringing back the reward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you said "The factory will get 3 different 240V lines that combine to make 415V (it's complicated)" is that what is meant by 3-phase ? I have heard the term but didn't know what it meant specifically." Correct. Electricity comes off the generators in 3 phases. That's why electricity pylons always have 3 sets of wires on each side, one set per phase. In olden days, high power motors used to require 3 phases to operate, so factories that needed high-power motors also needed to get all 3 supply phases to run them. Nowadays it's not really necessary, but it's standard practice so it still happens anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We couldn't get the price under £225k, despite the developers telling us they could get it cheaper. OK, go on then. And they did. And it doesn't work. The successful contractor undersized the cabling infrastructure for the charger points. (We also pointed out the new supply they'd requested from the DNO was undersized for our design) Oh dear indeed ! You know, for that sort of money, couldn't they have just had some really good solar panels on their roof, which discharge to some banks of Tesla Storage Batteries (15K a pop?). I'm guessing it would have been a lot cheaper than 225K, with the added benefit the solar power generated would have been free, too ! A project that pays for itself over a period of time had got to be better than giving money to the energy company in perpetuity ?" If I recall shape of the roof and planning permission were in the way of a solar farm on the roof. It wasn't Tesla dealership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
