FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Scrapping Diesel, Petrol and even Hybrid Cars ?
Scrapping Diesel, Petrol and even Hybrid Cars ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?."
Well hopefully they will replace the employment and money streams with the replacements of those vehicles? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So they stop selling in 15 years and your beef is what?.
Seriously you don't think a government isn't capable of new tax revenue?.
And to be fair it was the policy ages ago, they've just brought it forward five years.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?."
These are my favourite type of posts. Misunderstanding, misdirected rage and confusion all in one.
Bravo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
Well hopefully they will replace the employment and money streams with the replacements of those vehicles? "
Doubt it, fuel tax was only payable on both diesel and petrol cars, Electric cars has no tax value, The job losses will be mega.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
Well hopefully they will replace the employment and money streams with the replacements of those vehicles?
Doubt it, fuel tax was only payable on both diesel and petrol cars, Electric cars has no tax value, The job losses will be mega.."
Everything can be taxed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
New cars will all be fitted with trackers and road tax based on mileage.
They started trials about a decade ago in preparation.
Well done to Boris for sticking to another of his pledges  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
Well hopefully they will replace the employment and money streams with the replacements of those vehicles?
Doubt it, fuel tax was only payable on both diesel and petrol cars, Electric cars has no tax value, The job losses will be mega.."
Why not tax electricity? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"New cars will all be fitted with trackers and road tax based on mileage.
They started trials about a decade ago in preparation.
Well done to Boris for sticking to another of his pledges "
We don’t have ‘Road Tax’, and as such it won’t be taken based upon mileage covered. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"New cars will all be fitted with trackers and road tax based on mileage.
They started trials about a decade ago in preparation.
Well done to Boris for sticking to another of his pledges
We don’t have ‘Road Tax’, and as such it won’t be taken based upon mileage covered. "
Read my post again, I didn't say we did presently  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
"
I've done my bit. Got another car and only went for the 2 litre instead of 3 litre. Its a sacrifice but every little helps  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
"
.
Well you can always personally skip government targets and self impose walking or buying electric now, for those that can't afford it the government are giving 15 years notice.
It's the fastest transition in the EU to electric cars and something that should be applauded. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?."
Was on the news this morning that they are planning a tax direct proportionate to the distance you travel and each vehicle will be fitted with distance tracker
kind of a pain in the ass for me as I travel 35,000 miles a year just for the hell of it, because I love to drive, whether it be my motorcycles, car or hilux
Looks like many of us petrol heads may seriously plan relocating abroad if this is going to happen
and wave good bye to tourism
best find a nice wee house in middle of town or city too as people living rural are going to have to pay high costs to travel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
"
One solution is to keep increasing the emissions threshold on the MOT test year on year.
This would get the most polluting cars off the road first.
I think that most people missed the announcement that delivery firm UPS has just ordered 10000 electric vans, a move that should be copied in that sector. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
One solution is to keep increasing the emissions threshold on the MOT test year on year.
This would get the most polluting cars off the road first.
I think that most people missed the announcement that delivery firm UPS has just ordered 10000 electric vans, a move that should be copied in that sector. "
.
No that disproportionately effects the poor as they have the oldest cars, it's perfectly fair to do everybody at the same time and 15 years notice is long enough for everybody to adjust.
As you've just pointed out those that can afford to do so will way before that deadline anyhow. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
One solution is to keep increasing the emissions threshold on the MOT test year on year.
This would get the most polluting cars off the road first.
I think that most people missed the announcement that delivery firm UPS has just ordered 10000 electric vans, a move that should be copied in that sector. .
No that disproportionately effects the poor as they have the oldest cars, it's perfectly fair to do everybody at the same time and 15 years notice is long enough for everybody to adjust.
As you've just pointed out those that can afford to do so will way before that deadline anyhow."
Aren't you usually in favour of fucking over the poor in favour of making the top tier richest in society richer.
Why the sudden change of heart? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
One solution is to keep increasing the emissions threshold on the MOT test year on year.
This would get the most polluting cars off the road first.
I think that most people missed the announcement that delivery firm UPS has just ordered 10000 electric vans, a move that should be copied in that sector. .
No that disproportionately effects the poor as they have the oldest cars, it's perfectly fair to do everybody at the same time and 15 years notice is long enough for everybody to adjust.
As you've just pointed out those that can afford to do so will way before that deadline anyhow.
Aren't you usually in favour of fucking over the poor in favour of making the top tier richest in society richer.
Why the sudden change of heart?"
.
No you just made that up, I've always been in favour of fairness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
One solution is to keep increasing the emissions threshold on the MOT test year on year.
This would get the most polluting cars off the road first.
I think that most people missed the announcement that delivery firm UPS has just ordered 10000 electric vans, a move that should be copied in that sector. .
No that disproportionately effects the poor as they have the oldest cars, it's perfectly fair to do everybody at the same time and 15 years notice is long enough for everybody to adjust.
As you've just pointed out those that can afford to do so will way before that deadline anyhow.
Aren't you usually in favour of fucking over the poor in favour of making the top tier richest in society richer.
Why the sudden change of heart?.
No you just made that up, I've always been in favour of fairness."
Bahahaha. Amazing. Love it.
On that fantastic piece of humour. I'll leave you guys to it for the evening. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
One solution is to keep increasing the emissions threshold on the MOT test year on year.
This would get the most polluting cars off the road first.
I think that most people missed the announcement that delivery firm UPS has just ordered 10000 electric vans, a move that should be copied in that sector. .
No that disproportionately effects the poor as they have the oldest cars, it's perfectly fair to do everybody at the same time and 15 years notice is long enough for everybody to adjust.
As you've just pointed out those that can afford to do so will way before that deadline anyhow.
Aren't you usually in favour of fucking over the poor in favour of making the top tier richest in society richer.
Why the sudden change of heart?.
No you just made that up, I've always been in favour of fairness.
Bahahaha. Amazing. Love it.
On that fantastic piece of humour. I'll leave you guys to it for the evening. "
I think his profile has been hacked. Dodge.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?."
There will be tax put on electric cars. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
There will be tax put on electric cars."
Why would the Government need to?
I thought Brexit was going to bring in so much more prosperity we'd have more money than Saudi and the UAE so by this time comes we'd all be billionaires anyway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?."
Can’t stop change, no matter how used we are and how much we like the way that things are - change happens.
Once upon a time, a long time ago people were ridiculed for suggesting that cars would replace horses as a primary means of transport.
I think that the future is going to be very electric in all sorts of ways and the production and storage of it has a long way to go yet in terms of efficiency and technological advancement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And this highlights how the way the media report things lead to confusion.
The government is not going to be scrapping all petrol, diesel and hybrid cars in 2035.
They're just going to ban the sale of new ones.
We'll all still be able to drive our existing cars.
The thing is that the market is changing faster anyway as more and more people are making the shift to electric.
The whole motor industry is already changing to adapt to the changing climate (if you'll pardon the pun)
Our government is continuously looking at the revenue that can be made from car owners.
Those of us with classic vehicles might actually be able to look forward to a fairer system for us in a few years as the government sees that the revenue coming in from internal combustion engine powered vehicles is rapidly diminishing.
V.E.D. has already changed and certain incentives have already been withdrawn.
For example, my brother owns a hybrid. Currently he pays no VED whatsoever.
When he took it for MoT last year, the dealership tried to suggest that the time might be coming to replace it with a newer model.
My brothers response was why on earth would he want to do that, as a newer one would fall under newer VED rules and he'd have to pay £40 per year
(not that he can't afford it) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any other countries with this sort of plan in place?
Always seems the UK is under scrutiny to change to align with requerments.
"
Yes, our lot has proposed the same. I did a quick bit of googling just to see.... Nissan for example have sold just over 400,000 Leafs since the car was introduced in 2010.
That’s 400,000 cars in ten years.... for the entire planet !!!
Maybe if they banned ICE cars altogether, both new and old, they would increase production.... but I somehow doubt it....
After all, the material needed to power electric cars comes from beneath the earth, and we all know Greta’s views on mining ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Apparently it is possible to extract C02 out of the air using some sort of electrolysis process and turn it back into fuel. It is now being tested in several countries. The feed stock, air with 4 to 500 PPM CO2 is in abundance throughout the whole planet and at the same PPM anywhere on the planet so if the fuel plants were set up in the sahara desert for example where there is an abundance of solar energy there would be the electricity to power it.
Then where would the water come from I guess is the next problem. Anyway the solution is probably all around us right now, we are breathing it in and out all day long.
Google startup carbon engineering if you want to find out more. Pretty amazing really. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are there any other countries with this sort of plan in place?
Always seems the UK is under scrutiny to change to align with requerments.
Yes, our lot has proposed the same. I did a quick bit of googling just to see.... Nissan for example have sold just over 400,000 Leafs since the car was introduced in 2010.
That’s 400,000 cars in ten years.... for the entire planet !!!
Maybe if they banned ICE cars altogether, both new and old, they would increase production.... but I somehow doubt it....
After all, the material needed to power electric cars comes from beneath the earth, and we all know Greta’s views on mining !"
Just seems like it's the UK that's always under scrutiny.
The majority of vehicles that fail current emissions regulations in the UK are not normally scrapped they are exported to places like Africa as they have less stringent requirements.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A few things to ponder.
1. Taking it 5 years on to 2040 when (if the ban does come in) the majority of cars will be electric (it could happen earlier but I'll stick with that for now) it is estimated that the UK will need around 25 million charging points. That is 3,500 per day if they start today and work 7 days a week. At the moment there are roughly 30 thousand, so only another 24,970,000 to go.
2. Probably more important than above is where does the electricity come from? It's reckoned that at least an extra 20 gw of capacity will be needed just to cover car charging, that is more than double the whole of the UK's current nuclear capacity. Wind turbines can help but it would need around another 10,000 (roughly double the current number) just to stand still, and their reliability for on demand electric isn't good.
Add to that Ofgem's drive to get household heating off gas and on to electricity and that figure could double again.
3. Following on from 2. What happens at peak times when commuters all plug their cars in at roughly the same time? In some areas the system can barely cope with the kettle rush at the Corrie adverts, let alone a few million cars getting plugged in.
4. The raw materials for the manufacture of batteries are not infinite. It is boderline if there is enough known reserves of lithium in the world just to make enough car batteries to replace petrol and diesel, let alone mobile phones and all its other uses.
Most (if not all) Cobalt comes from the Congo which is hardly a reliable and stable source and their abuse of child labour is horrific. (stolen childhoods/futures anyone?)
5. Neodymium is a rare earth metal needed for the manufacture of the magnets used in electric engines. While not as rare as you may think its extraction causes massive pollution and 80% of the world market (and price) is controlled by China. Again not the most reliable source these days.
6. While the electric car running around in a city centre may seem to be be clean, on a global scale it isn't as clean as you may think. A Swedish-government report says that making the battery alone releases as much CO2 as eight years'worth of driving a petrol vehicle.
Also the debate about particulates is filled with disinformation and disingenuity. While the particulate count from diesels is much higher than electric, that doesn't mean that electric is particulate free. Tyre, brake, and clutch wear all produce particulates which tend to be forgotten when talking about electric but lumped into the total figure when talking about petrol and diesel.
Finally I think this rush to electric is ill thought out and while it may salve a few political consciences, it will do little or nothing to stop climate change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Where is all the electric coming from ??????"
Rumour has it that when you get your charging point fitted, they will also install and connect it to an exercise bike.
They idea is that while watching TV you peddle like billy-o for around four hours which will not only re-charge your car but will solve the obesity crisis as well.
Fookin clever Eh!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Where is all the electric coming from ??????
Rumour has it that when you get your charging point fitted, they will also install and connect it to an exercise bike.
They idea is that while watching TV you peddle like billy-o for around four hours which will not only re-charge your car but will solve the obesity crisis as well.
Fookin clever Eh! "
Now this I like......apart from sitting on my arse for 4 hours peddling like mad , especially when there is sod all on tv to wtch while u charge  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Where is all the electric coming from ??????"
Seriously though, they haven't got a clue. As I posted above the infrastructure needed to sustain millions of electric cars will take decades.
It will not happen in 15 years or even 20.
More importantly, where are the batteries going to come from?
Just to convert Britain will need around 32 million of them, plus replacements. Modern cars may last for 20 years plus but how long will the battery's last? That figure could easily double over a 20 year period, and that is only for Britain. What about the rest of Europe and the world?
As I posted earlier, these battery's need rare earth materials. There just isn't enough Cobalt and Lithium to produce billions, because that is where the world wide number will end up, of battery's.
More prudent would be to concentrate on making petrol and diesel cars cleaner (there is good headway being made in that area at the moment) and along with Hybrids it should keep us going until they get Hydrogen fuel cells sorted.
A knee jerk panic into electric because some Swedish kid knows how to scowl really isn't the answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Everyone still buries heads in the sand and dont realise the main issue is over population of humans"
fook them let them all day I ain't stopping by time it comes will have been moved back again also the tracker will be obsolete Easley re mapped
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok not a clever Bod ... but how is the energy ie electricity being created for the cars.. "
At the moment it isn't, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.
As I said above Britain will have to produce roughly 20 gw more power than it currently does but that would be to only charge cars and stand still on everything else..
If we take Nuclear for example, it currently produces around 10 gw so to rely on that would mean trebling Britain's nuclear capacity. However with nearly all of Britain's existing nuclear power stations earmarked to close before 2030 this would be a mammoth (and quite frankly unachievable) task.
The wind turbine situation isn't much better. Britain has around 10,000 turbines at the moment which produce roughly 20 gw so it is quite easy to reckon that another 10,000 would have to be erected, but that would only be to charge cars. On everything else it's stand still. Also as I said above Ofgem is driving to switch all household heating from gas to electric over a similar period. How much extra capacity that would require isn't known but it will be huge.
The bottom line is that it cannot be done in 15 or even 20 years. Even if they chucked everything including the kitchen sink at it starting today.
This hair brained idea is nothing more than politicians posturing and virtue signalling and will end in tears or, as is more likely, get kicked into the long grass in about 5 years time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok not a clever Bod ... but how is the energy ie electricity being created for the cars..
At the moment it isn't, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.
As I said above Britain will have to produce roughly 20 gw more power than it currently does but that would be to only charge cars and stand still on everything else..
If we take Nuclear for example, it currently produces around 10 gw so to rely on that would mean trebling Britain's nuclear capacity. However with nearly all of Britain's existing nuclear power stations earmarked to close before 2030 this would be a mammoth (and quite frankly unachievable) task.
The wind turbine situation isn't much better. Britain has around 10,000 turbines at the moment which produce roughly 20 gw so it is quite easy to reckon that another 10,000 would have to be erected, but that would only be to charge cars. On everything else it's stand still. Also as I said above Ofgem is driving to switch all household heating from gas to electric over a similar period. How much extra capacity that would require isn't known but it will be huge.
The bottom line is that it cannot be done in 15 or even 20 years. Even if they chucked everything including the kitchen sink at it starting today.
This hair brained idea is nothing more than politicians posturing and virtue signalling and will end in tears or, as is more likely, get kicked into the long grass in about 5 years time. "
Like today as an example Great Britain's national grid right now (16:35) has a demand of 41.66GW
CCGT = Gas, is producing 20GW (48. 01%) of demand
Nuclear is producing 6.30GW (15.12%)
Wind is producing 4.78GW (11.47 %)
Biomass is producing 2.79GW (6.70%)
Coal is producing 2.36GW (5.67%)
French interconnect 2GW
Solar 0.91GW (2.18%)
Dutch interconnect 0.60GW (1.52%)
Our national energy plan is massively under prepared for any form of even semi sized increase of demand.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Apparently it is possible to extract C02 out of the air using some sort of electrolysis process and turn it back into fuel. It is now being tested in several countries."
Change “electrolysis” to “photosynthesis” and you just need to plant lots and lots and lots of trees. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok not a clever Bod ... but how is the energy ie electricity being created for the cars..
At the moment it isn't, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.
As I said above Britain will have to produce roughly 20 gw more power than it currently does but that would be to only charge cars and stand still on everything else..
If we take Nuclear for example, it currently produces around 10 gw so to rely on that would mean trebling Britain's nuclear capacity. However with nearly all of Britain's existing nuclear power stations earmarked to close before 2030 this would be a mammoth (and quite frankly unachievable) task.
The wind turbine situation isn't much better. Britain has around 10,000 turbines at the moment which produce roughly 20 gw so it is quite easy to reckon that another 10,000 would have to be erected, but that would only be to charge cars. On everything else it's stand still. Also as I said above Ofgem is driving to switch all household heating from gas to electric over a similar period. How much extra capacity that would require isn't known but it will be huge.
The bottom line is that it cannot be done in 15 or even 20 years. Even if they chucked everything including the kitchen sink at it starting today.
This hair brained idea is nothing more than politicians posturing and virtue signalling and will end in tears or, as is more likely, get kicked into the long grass in about 5 years time.
Like today as an example Great Britain's national grid right now (16:35) has a demand of 41.66GW
CCGT = Gas, is producing 20GW (48. 01%) of demand
Nuclear is producing 6.30GW (15.12%)
Wind is producing 4.78GW (11.47 %)
Biomass is producing 2.79GW (6.70%)
Coal is producing 2.36GW (5.67%)
French interconnect 2GW
Solar 0.91GW (2.18%)
Dutch interconnect 0.60GW (1.52%)
Our national energy plan is massively under prepared for any form of even semi sized increase of demand.
"
Absolutely right.
However the increase in demand required by electric cars and Ofgems plans would make the average "semi" look like Windsor Castle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Everyone still buries heads in the sand and dont realise the main issue is over population of humansfook them let them all day I ain't stopping by time it comes will have been moved back again also the tracker will be obsolete Easley re mapped"
I think you should post some more. I enjoyed the section where you discuss "the tractor". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok not a clever Bod ... but how is the energy ie electricity being created for the cars..
At the moment it isn't, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.
As I said above Britain will have to produce roughly 20 gw more power than it currently does but that would be to only charge cars and stand still on everything else..
If we take Nuclear for example, it currently produces around 10 gw so to rely on that would mean trebling Britain's nuclear capacity. However with nearly all of Britain's existing nuclear power stations earmarked to close before 2030 this would be a mammoth (and quite frankly unachievable) task.
The wind turbine situation isn't much better. Britain has around 10,000 turbines at the moment which produce roughly 20 gw so it is quite easy to reckon that another 10,000 would have to be erected, but that would only be to charge cars. On everything else it's stand still. Also as I said above Ofgem is driving to switch all household heating from gas to electric over a similar period. How much extra capacity that would require isn't known but it will be huge.
The bottom line is that it cannot be done in 15 or even 20 years. Even if they chucked everything including the kitchen sink at it starting today.
This hair brained idea is nothing more than politicians posturing and virtue signalling and will end in tears or, as is more likely, get kicked into the long grass in about 5 years time.
Like today as an example Great Britain's national grid right now (16:35) has a demand of 41.66GW
CCGT = Gas, is producing 20GW (48. 01%) of demand
Nuclear is producing 6.30GW (15.12%)
Wind is producing 4.78GW (11.47 %)
Biomass is producing 2.79GW (6.70%)
Coal is producing 2.36GW (5.67%)
French interconnect 2GW
Solar 0.91GW (2.18%)
Dutch interconnect 0.60GW (1.52%)
Our national energy plan is massively under prepared for any form of even semi sized increase of demand.
Absolutely right.
However the increase in demand required by electric cars and Ofgems plans would make the average "semi" look like Windsor Castle."
Glad i could add something |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok not a clever Bod ... but how is the energy ie electricity being created for the cars..
At the moment it isn't, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.
As I said above Britain will have to produce roughly 20 gw more power than it currently does but that would be to only charge cars and stand still on everything else..
If we take Nuclear for example, it currently produces around 10 gw so to rely on that would mean trebling Britain's nuclear capacity. However with nearly all of Britain's existing nuclear power stations earmarked to close before 2030 this would be a mammoth (and quite frankly unachievable) task.
The wind turbine situation isn't much better. Britain has around 10,000 turbines at the moment which produce roughly 20 gw so it is quite easy to reckon that another 10,000 would have to be erected, but that would only be to charge cars. On everything else it's stand still. Also as I said above Ofgem is driving to switch all household heating from gas to electric over a similar period. How much extra capacity that would require isn't known but it will be huge.
The bottom line is that it cannot be done in 15 or even 20 years. Even if they chucked everything including the kitchen sink at it starting today.
This hair brained idea is nothing more than politicians posturing and virtue signalling and will end in tears or, as is more likely, get kicked into the long grass in about 5 years time.
Like today as an example Great Britain's national grid right now (16:35) has a demand of 41.66GW
CCGT = Gas, is producing 20GW (48. 01%) of demand
Nuclear is producing 6.30GW (15.12%)
Wind is producing 4.78GW (11.47 %)
Biomass is producing 2.79GW (6.70%)
Coal is producing 2.36GW (5.67%)
French interconnect 2GW
Solar 0.91GW (2.18%)
Dutch interconnect 0.60GW (1.52%)
Our national energy plan is massively under prepared for any form of even semi sized increase of demand.
"
Anyone watching "Cobra"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As many others have pointed out, the infrastructure to cope with the huge increase in demand for electricity this policy will cause, simply isn't there.
It won't be built in under 15 years, either.
This is the UK, not China. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
Well hopefully they will replace the employment and money streams with the replacements of those vehicles?
Doubt it, fuel tax was only payable on both diesel and petrol cars, Electric cars has no tax value, The job losses will be mega.."
Is there not Excise Duty to think about too!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
Well hopefully they will replace the employment and money streams with the replacements of those vehicles?
Doubt it, fuel tax was only payable on both diesel and petrol cars, Electric cars has no tax value, The job losses will be mega..
Everything can be taxed. "
Ok VAT on importing a car 20% depening on age
Duty 10% to 16% depending on engine size and engine type...
But hey what do i no ... this could all change and lets thank Brexit..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok not a clever Bod ... but how is the energy ie electricity being created for the cars..
At the moment it isn't, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.
As I said above Britain will have to produce roughly 20 gw more power than it currently does but that would be to only charge cars and stand still on everything else..
If we take Nuclear for example, it currently produces around 10 gw so to rely on that would mean trebling Britain's nuclear capacity. However with nearly all of Britain's existing nuclear power stations earmarked to close before 2030 this would be a mammoth (and quite frankly unachievable) task.
The wind turbine situation isn't much better. Britain has around 10,000 turbines at the moment which produce roughly 20 gw so it is quite easy to reckon that another 10,000 would have to be erected, but that would only be to charge cars. On everything else it's stand still. Also as I said above Ofgem is driving to switch all household heating from gas to electric over a similar period. How much extra capacity that would require isn't known but it will be huge.
The bottom line is that it cannot be done in 15 or even 20 years. Even if they chucked everything including the kitchen sink at it starting today.
This hair brained idea is nothing more than politicians posturing and virtue signalling and will end in tears or, as is more likely, get kicked into the long grass in about 5 years time.
Like today as an example Great Britain's national grid right now (16:35) has a demand of 41.66GW
CCGT = Gas, is producing 20GW (48. 01%) of demand
Nuclear is producing 6.30GW (15.12%)
Wind is producing 4.78GW (11.47 %)
Biomass is producing 2.79GW (6.70%)
Coal is producing 2.36GW (5.67%)
French interconnect 2GW
Solar 0.91GW (2.18%)
Dutch interconnect 0.60GW (1.52%)
Our national energy plan is massively under prepared for any form of even semi sized increase of demand.
"
I've just been reading up on a few things and it seems that Britain is going to struggle to even stand still by 2035.
As you say, nuclear is currently providing around 15% of capacity.
However all of the AGR reactors are planned to shut down by 2030 (some as early as 2023) and the only PWR reactor in 2035.
So unless these are replaced Britain will have no nuclear capacity when the petrol diesel ban comes into force. At the moment there is only one new station (Hinkley Point C) that is even on the drawing board, and while planning started in 2010 as of today not one brick has been laid.
The alternatives to nuclear just don't really stack up either.
Fossil fuel? I thought the whole point of the exercise was to get off fossil fuels so building more gas and coal power stations would be nonsensical.
Solar just isn't efficient enough so unless a breakthrough of alien intelligence proportions turns up then forget it.
So now we get to wind. As someone who spent most of his life in Blackpool I can testify that Britain certainly gets enough of it, but even in Blackpool there are quite a few days when it just doesn't blow. So reliability is a big issue.
The bigger issue though is the sheer numbers of wind turbines that would have to be built. At the moment roughly 10,000 wind turbines provide around 12% of capacity so in the next 15 years they would have to more than double the amount just to replace the loss of nuclear with not one jot of increase in total capacity.
To cover electric car charging as well as phasing out gas for home heating would mean (at least) more than doubling it again. And none of that allows for the extra demand caused by population increase.
Britain is only one freak weather event away from the lights going out now, and to have all these high and mighty plans on the premise that "something will turn up" would even make Micawber himself shudder. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok not a clever Bod ... but how is the energy ie electricity being created for the cars..
At the moment it isn't, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.
As I said above Britain will have to produce roughly 20 gw more power than it currently does but that would be to only charge cars and stand still on everything else..
If we take Nuclear for example, it currently produces around 10 gw so to rely on that would mean trebling Britain's nuclear capacity. However with nearly all of Britain's existing nuclear power stations earmarked to close before 2030 this would be a mammoth (and quite frankly unachievable) task.
The wind turbine situation isn't much better. Britain has around 10,000 turbines at the moment which produce roughly 20 gw so it is quite easy to reckon that another 10,000 would have to be erected, but that would only be to charge cars. On everything else it's stand still. Also as I said above Ofgem is driving to switch all household heating from gas to electric over a similar period. How much extra capacity that would require isn't known but it will be huge.
The bottom line is that it cannot be done in 15 or even 20 years. Even if they chucked everything including the kitchen sink at it starting today.
This hair brained idea is nothing more than politicians posturing and virtue signalling and will end in tears or, as is more likely, get kicked into the long grass in about 5 years time.
Like today as an example Great Britain's national grid right now (16:35) has a demand of 41.66GW
CCGT = Gas, is producing 20GW (48. 01%) of demand
Nuclear is producing 6.30GW (15.12%)
Wind is producing 4.78GW (11.47 %)
Biomass is producing 2.79GW (6.70%)
Coal is producing 2.36GW (5.67%)
French interconnect 2GW
Solar 0.91GW (2.18%)
Dutch interconnect 0.60GW (1.52%)
Our national energy plan is massively under prepared for any form of even semi sized increase of demand.
I've just been reading up on a few things and it seems that Britain is going to struggle to even stand still by 2035.
As you say, nuclear is currently providing around 15% of capacity.
However all of the AGR reactors are planned to shut down by 2030 (some as early as 2023) and the only PWR reactor in 2035.
So unless these are replaced Britain will have no nuclear capacity when the petrol diesel ban comes into force. At the moment there is only one new station (Hinkley Point C) that is even on the drawing board, and while planning started in 2010 as of today not one brick has been laid.
The alternatives to nuclear just don't really stack up either.
Fossil fuel? I thought the whole point of the exercise was to get off fossil fuels so building more gas and coal power stations would be nonsensical.
Solar just isn't efficient enough so unless a breakthrough of alien intelligence proportions turns up then forget it.
So now we get to wind. As someone who spent most of his life in Blackpool I can testify that Britain certainly gets enough of it, but even in Blackpool there are quite a few days when it just doesn't blow. So reliability is a big issue.
The bigger issue though is the sheer numbers of wind turbines that would have to be built. At the moment roughly 10,000 wind turbines provide around 12% of capacity so in the next 15 years they would have to more than double the amount just to replace the loss of nuclear with not one jot of increase in total capacity.
To cover electric car charging as well as phasing out gas for home heating would mean (at least) more than doubling it again. And none of that allows for the extra demand caused by population increase.
Britain is only one freak weather event away from the lights going out now, and to have all these high and mighty plans on the premise that "something will turn up" would even make Micawber himself shudder."
And the Government knows best !!!! they know fuck all, it is us normal people that can see all the problems..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok not a clever Bod ... but how is the energy ie electricity being created for the cars..
At the moment it isn't, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.
As I said above Britain will have to produce roughly 20 gw more power than it currently does but that would be to only charge cars and stand still on everything else..
If we take Nuclear for example, it currently produces around 10 gw so to rely on that would mean trebling Britain's nuclear capacity. However with nearly all of Britain's existing nuclear power stations earmarked to close before 2030 this would be a mammoth (and quite frankly unachievable) task.
The wind turbine situation isn't much better. Britain has around 10,000 turbines at the moment which produce roughly 20 gw so it is quite easy to reckon that another 10,000 would have to be erected, but that would only be to charge cars. On everything else it's stand still. Also as I said above Ofgem is driving to switch all household heating from gas to electric over a similar period. How much extra capacity that would require isn't known but it will be huge.
The bottom line is that it cannot be done in 15 or even 20 years. Even if they chucked everything including the kitchen sink at it starting today.
This hair brained idea is nothing more than politicians posturing and virtue signalling and will end in tears or, as is more likely, get kicked into the long grass in about 5 years time.
Like today as an example Great Britain's national grid right now (16:35) has a demand of 41.66GW
CCGT = Gas, is producing 20GW (48. 01%) of demand
Nuclear is producing 6.30GW (15.12%)
Wind is producing 4.78GW (11.47 %)
Biomass is producing 2.79GW (6.70%)
Coal is producing 2.36GW (5.67%)
French interconnect 2GW
Solar 0.91GW (2.18%)
Dutch interconnect 0.60GW (1.52%)
Our national energy plan is massively under prepared for any form of even semi sized increase of demand.
I've just been reading up on a few things and it seems that Britain is going to struggle to even stand still by 2035.
As you say, nuclear is currently providing around 15% of capacity.
However all of the AGR reactors are planned to shut down by 2030 (some as early as 2023) and the only PWR reactor in 2035.
So unless these are replaced Britain will have no nuclear capacity when the petrol diesel ban comes into force. At the moment there is only one new station (Hinkley Point C) that is even on the drawing board, and while planning started in 2010 as of today not one brick has been laid.
The alternatives to nuclear just don't really stack up either.
Fossil fuel? I thought the whole point of the exercise was to get off fossil fuels so building more gas and coal power stations would be nonsensical.
Solar just isn't efficient enough so unless a breakthrough of alien intelligence proportions turns up then forget it.
So now we get to wind. As someone who spent most of his life in Blackpool I can testify that Britain certainly gets enough of it, but even in Blackpool there are quite a few days when it just doesn't blow. So reliability is a big issue.
The bigger issue though is the sheer numbers of wind turbines that would have to be built. At the moment roughly 10,000 wind turbines provide around 12% of capacity so in the next 15 years they would have to more than double the amount just to replace the loss of nuclear with not one jot of increase in total capacity.
To cover electric car charging as well as phasing out gas for home heating would mean (at least) more than doubling it again. And none of that allows for the extra demand caused by population increase.
Britain is only one freak weather event away from the lights going out now, and to have all these high and mighty plans on the premise that "something will turn up" would even make Micawber himself shudder.
And the Government knows best !!!! they know fuck all, it is us normal people that can see all the problems.. "
No no. The government are well aware of the problems. They know all about it and probably more besides.
However they also know the old saying that today's news is tomorrows chip paper (for those of us old enough to remember that)
This proposed ban won't actually happen, it can't happen. But what the proposal has achieved is to show the Greta followers that the government is taking them seriously. They're not really, but it's seen as a way of shutting them up for a while.
Now the government has 15 years to find a reason to back track, or drop the whole shitty mess into the lap of a future government.
Welcome to the cloak and dagger world of politics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Apparently it is possible to extract C02 out of the air using some sort of electrolysis process and turn it back into fuel. It is now being tested in several countries.
Change “electrolysis” to “photosynthesis” and you just need to plant lots and lots and lots of trees. "
Yes but unfortunately driving around using wood burning steam engine is not terribly easy is it ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Apparently it is possible to extract C02 out of the air using some sort of electrolysis process and turn it back into fuel. It is now being tested in several countries.
Change “electrolysis” to “photosynthesis” and you just need to plant lots and lots and lots of trees.
Yes but unfortunately driving around using wood burning steam engine is not terribly easy is it ?
"
Wood can be used as a fuel - it has been for centuries. Not all fuel is good for all applications but the right fuel for the right application is what matters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"So they stop selling in 15 years and your beef is what?.
Seriously you don't think a government isn't capable of new tax revenue?.
And to be fair it was the policy ages ago, they've just brought it forward five years.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
"
What about the extra power stations needed to keep up with demand, won't those power stations generate pollution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is the technology to build motorways which generate power by converting kinetic energy from the cars driving on them - we should be using this tech everywhere. Yes, it’s expensive, but the long term benefits must outweigh the short term cost.
No single one thing is going to save the climate - it has to be a multi-faceted approach. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Apparently it is possible to extract C02 out of the air using some sort of electrolysis process and turn it back into fuel. It is now being tested in several countries.
Change “electrolysis” to “photosynthesis” and you just need to plant lots and lots and lots of trees.
Yes but unfortunately driving around using wood burning steam engine is not terribly easy is it ?
Wood can be used as a fuel - it has been for centuries. Not all fuel is good for all applications but the right fuel for the right application is what matters."
Yes of course but the thread is about cars and I really can't see Mercedes Benz launching their wood burning AMG any time soon.
As for using wood to generate electricity. Do you realise how many trees would have to be cut to generate the amounts needed?
On a small scale it is sustainable but on the scale required to replace nuclear and fossil fuel it just won't work unless someone comes up with an idea of alien technology proportions.
To be fair some of the wood pellets being used today come from sawmill waste (mostly from Canada) and bio mass but they still produce large amounts of C02 both when being burned and during transport. So they won't really make much difference to pollution levels.
It's a nice idea but it's just another example that sums up the lunacy of the climate activists at the moment.
I think we are all aware that there is something going on with the climate, to what degree is open to debate. But running around shouting ban this, ban that, and ban the other without coming up with any serious alternatives is beyond stupidity.
Even if wind, solar, and wood pellets could produce the amounts of energy needed (they can't) the work to build the power stations and infrastructure would make building a Chinese hospital in 10 days look like child's play. And I haven't even started on what it would all cost. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is the technology to build motorways which generate power by converting kinetic energy from the cars driving on them - we should be using this tech everywhere. Yes, it’s expensive, but the long term benefits must outweigh the short term cost.
No single one thing is going to save the climate - it has to be a multi-faceted approach."
Not only expensive but still experimental. That idea is decades away. If it can even be done at all. Having technology to do something at an experimental level is very different to up scaling it for general use.
Dreaming up new ideas that may (or may not) come to fruition in 50 or 60 years time is all fine and dandy for the long term future. However the ban on petrol and diesel hits in 15 years (unless it gets kicked into the long grass before then) by which time most of the nuclear power stations will have shut down. Someone needs to get their arse into gear now with the technology we've got.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"There is the technology to build motorways which generate power by converting kinetic energy from the cars driving on them - we should be using this tech everywhere. Yes, it’s expensive, but the long term benefits must outweigh the short term cost.
No single one thing is going to save the climate - it has to be a multi-faceted approach.
Not only expensive but still experimental. That idea is decades away. If it can even be done at all. Having technology to do something at an experimental level is very different to up scaling it for general use.
Dreaming up new ideas that may (or may not) come to fruition in 50 or 60 years time is all fine and dandy for the long term future. However the ban on petrol and diesel hits in 15 years (unless it gets kicked into the long grass before then) by which time most of the nuclear power stations will have shut down. Someone needs to get their arse into gear now with the technology we've got.
"
nah were sorted we can just import all our electricity from across the north sea you know from Europe surly they will give us a preferential rate now we are out of there club ......... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if we do lot get rid of diesel and petrol cars how are we supposed to combat pollution?
To be honest even 15 years is too long and don’t forget he is talking stopping new ones being built and sold it’s going to take bloody years to get rid of them altogether and even then you’re always going to have the fuckwits who will just make it more difficult to get this done.
The amount of poorly maintained vehicles on the road kicking out shite is unbelievable, how many times do you pull up behind someone and they are nearly choking you with exhaust fumes.
"
It won't take as many years as you think to get most of the petrol/diesel cars off the road.
The UK new car market registers roughly 2.5 million cars per year and has a total "car park" of around 35 million. So you would think that 5 years on from the ban only around a third would be gone. But you would be wrong.
People are buying electric cars today and the percentage will increase year on year until 2035. By 2040 well over half (maybe even 2 thirds) of the cars on UK roads will be electric.
Which takes us back to the main thrust of this thread.
Where does the electric come from? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is the technology to build motorways which generate power by converting kinetic energy from the cars driving on them - we should be using this tech everywhere. Yes, it’s expensive, but the long term benefits must outweigh the short term cost.
No single one thing is going to save the climate - it has to be a multi-faceted approach.
Not only expensive but still experimental. That idea is decades away. If it can even be done at all. Having technology to do something at an experimental level is very different to up scaling it for general use.
Dreaming up new ideas that may (or may not) come to fruition in 50 or 60 years time is all fine and dandy for the long term future. However the ban on petrol and diesel hits in 15 years (unless it gets kicked into the long grass before then) by which time most of the nuclear power stations will have shut down. Someone needs to get their arse into gear now with the technology we've got.
nah were sorted we can just import all our electricity from across the north sea you know from Europe surly they will give us a preferential rate now we are out of there club ........."
I wouldn't count on it.
Britain isn't the only country that will be in the electricity generating shit in a few years time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
History ...one if the first cars ever made was electric ...so that shows just how far we have not come....and history ...in 20s 30s and 40s ...only the rich people could afford cars ...is history repeating it's self ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A few things to ponder.
1. Taking it 5 years on to 2040 when (if the ban does come in) the majority of cars will be electric (it could happen earlier but I'll stick with that for now) it is estimated that the UK will need around 25 million charging points. That is 3,500 per day if they start today and work 7 days a week. At the moment there are roughly 30 thousand, so only another 24,970,000 to go.
2. Probably more important than above is where does the electricity come from? It's reckoned that at least an extra 20 gw of capacity will be needed just to cover car charging, that is more than double the whole of the UK's current nuclear capacity. Wind turbines can help but it would need around another 10,000 (roughly double the current number) just to stand still, and their reliability for on demand electric isn't good.
Add to that Ofgem's drive to get household heating off gas and on to electricity and that figure could double again.
3. Following on from 2. What happens at peak times when commuters all plug their cars in at roughly the same time? In some areas the system can barely cope with the kettle rush at the Corrie adverts, let alone a few million cars getting plugged in.
4. The raw materials for the manufacture of batteries are not infinite. It is boderline if there is enough known reserves of lithium in the world just to make enough car batteries to replace petrol and diesel, let alone mobile phones and all its other uses.
Most (if not all) Cobalt comes from the Congo which is hardly a reliable and stable source and their abuse of child labour is horrific. (stolen childhoods/futures anyone?)
5. Neodymium is a rare earth metal needed for the manufacture of the magnets used in electric engines. While not as rare as you may think its extraction causes massive pollution and 80% of the world market (and price) is controlled by China. Again not the most reliable source these days.
6. While the electric car running around in a city centre may seem to be be clean, on a global scale it isn't as clean as you may think. A Swedish-government report says that making the battery alone releases as much CO2 as eight years'worth of driving a petrol vehicle.
Also the debate about particulates is filled with disinformation and disingenuity. While the particulate count from diesels is much higher than electric, that doesn't mean that electric is particulate free. Tyre, brake, and clutch wear all produce particulates which tend to be forgotten when talking about electric but lumped into the total figure when talking about petrol and diesel.
Finally I think this rush to electric is ill thought out and while it may salve a few political consciences, it will do little or nothing to stop climate change. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just read Parker’s review of buying electric cars. Even Kia and Hyundai’s are £30 k plus . Half decent SUVs are £60-£70k.
Installing a charge point in your home is about £1,000. Charge points out in the big wide world?. Range of car ?( real world range, not constant 56mph with no stop start). Batteries last about 7 years then £7k for new ones . Resale values much worse than any other catregiries of car. Projected nickel , cobalt and lithium supplies not sufficient for world wide rollout. Everyone plugging their cars in overnight ? Forget that. Nowhere near enough power in the grid no matter how many wind turbines we plant. Fiasco. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just read Parker’s review of buying electric cars. Even Kia and Hyundai’s are £30 k plus . Half decent SUVs are £60-£70k.
Installing a charge point in your home is about £1,000. Charge points out in the big wide world?. Range of car ?( real world range, not constant 56mph with no stop start). Batteries last about 7 years then £7k for new ones . Resale values much worse than any other catregiries of car. Projected nickel , cobalt and lithium supplies not sufficient for world wide rollout. Everyone plugging their cars in overnight ? Forget that. Nowhere near enough power in the grid no matter how many wind turbines we plant. Fiasco."
Yep.
Interesting is the battery life of around 7 years. Must admit to not knowing that.
So, if battery life is 7 years and, according to the Swedish government report I mentions earlier, the battery production produces as much C02 as driving an average petrol car for 8 years. Then what is the fucking point of it all?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Just read Parker’s review of buying electric cars. Even Kia and Hyundai’s are £30 k plus . Half decent SUVs are £60-£70k.
Installing a charge point in your home is about £1,000. Charge points out in the big wide world?. Range of car ?( real world range, not constant 56mph with no stop start). Batteries last about 7 years then £7k for new ones . Resale values much worse than any other catregiries of car. Projected nickel , cobalt and lithium supplies not sufficient for world wide rollout. Everyone plugging their cars in overnight ? Forget that. Nowhere near enough power in the grid no matter how many wind turbines we plant. Fiasco."
Fast charging reduces battery life.
A friend has just gone electric. £54k for the car. £1250 for the charger, and he did some of the work himself.
Car sold as 300 miles range but it's more like 180.
Electric cars pose as many questions as they are supposed to solve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A few things to ponder.
1. Taking it 5 years on to 2040 when (if the ban does come in) the majority of cars will be electric (it could happen earlier but I'll stick with that for now) it is estimated that the UK will need around 25 million charging points. That is 3,500 per day if they start today and work 7 days a week. At the moment there are roughly 30 thousand, so only another 24,970,000 to go.
2. Probably more important than above is where does the electricity come from? It's reckoned that at least an extra 20 gw of capacity will be needed just to cover car charging, that is more than double the whole of the UK's current nuclear capacity. Wind turbines can help but it would need around another 10,000 (roughly double the current number) just to stand still, and their reliability for on demand electric isn't good.
Add to that Ofgem's drive to get household heating off gas and on to electricity and that figure could double again.
3. Following on from 2. What happens at peak times when commuters all plug their cars in at roughly the same time? In some areas the system can barely cope with the kettle rush at the Corrie adverts, let alone a few million cars getting plugged in.
4. The raw materials for the manufacture of batteries are not infinite. It is boderline if there is enough known reserves of lithium in the world just to make enough car batteries to replace petrol and diesel, let alone mobile phones and all its other uses.
Most (if not all) Cobalt comes from the Congo which is hardly a reliable and stable source and their abuse of child labour is horrific. (stolen childhoods/futures anyone?)
5. Neodymium is a rare earth metal needed for the manufacture of the magnets used in electric engines. While not as rare as you may think its extraction causes massive pollution and 80% of the world market (and price) is controlled by China. Again not the most reliable source these days.
6. While the electric car running around in a city centre may seem to be be clean, on a global scale it isn't as clean as you may think. A Swedish-government report says that making the battery alone releases as much CO2 as eight years'worth of driving a petrol vehicle.
Also the debate about particulates is filled with disinformation and disingenuity. While the particulate count from diesels is much higher than electric, that doesn't mean that electric is particulate free. Tyre, brake, and clutch wear all produce particulates which tend to be forgotten when talking about electric but lumped into the total figure when talking about petrol and diesel.
Finally I think this rush to electric is ill thought out and while it may salve a few political consciences, it will do little or nothing to stop climate change. "
I broadly agree with you. We need to take a much more balanced approach to this whole subject. Whilst in towns the move to all electric transport may have some beneficial environmental impact, its main impact will be in changing the the location of the environmental impact from the the cities to where the batteries are made and eventually disposed off. In rural areas and for long distance travel it doesn't even have that advantage.
For millennium humans have been burning CO2 producing products to creat energy. The problem now is that we are burning too much. If we simply switch all of that CO2 producing energy creation to something else we're simply going to creat a whole load of new problems associated with whatever new energy producing technology we move to.
Doing nothing is not an option but neither is rushing to this all electric option without fully evaluating the environmental impact such a move will inevitably have.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?."
If you don't believe climate change is a concern then there is no point to this other than energy security and drastically reducing pollution in urban areas.
It may be that saving several thousand lives a year in pollution related deaths is not worth the price.
If climate change is a concern then the sooner the switch away from CO2 the better because the cost of a severe change in the climate will be far higher than anything paid to make the change.
Taxes will be raised by other means. As suggested, probably pay by the mile which will probably encourage increased use of mass transport (assuming the investment is made) and ride-sharing/hailing like Uber.
This target will drive Hydrogen fuel cells for use as fuel. This will reduce the production bottleneck of materials for batteries.
Massive investment in nationwide infrastructure for hydrogen or electric charging is needed.
However, the automotive industry was not consulted about this and is on a downturn. Their development plans will not meet this without government support.
There is no government plan for this.
There is still no plan for building adequate electricity generation capacity. This will need massive infrastructure investment.
There is no government plan for this.
There is an opportunity to take a lead in this area that could then be sold worldwide.
There is no government plan for this.
It was really just an opportunity for Boris to have a photo next to David Attenborough and talk about how important the environment is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok not a clever Bod ... but how is the energy ie electricity being created for the cars..
At the moment it isn't, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.
As I said above Britain will have to produce roughly 20 gw more power than it currently does but that would be to only charge cars and stand still on everything else..
If we take Nuclear for example, it currently produces around 10 gw so to rely on that would mean trebling Britain's nuclear capacity. However with nearly all of Britain's existing nuclear power stations earmarked to close before 2030 this would be a mammoth (and quite frankly unachievable) task.
The wind turbine situation isn't much better. Britain has around 10,000 turbines at the moment which produce roughly 20 gw so it is quite easy to reckon that another 10,000 would have to be erected, but that would only be to charge cars. On everything else it's stand still. Also as I said above Ofgem is driving to switch all household heating from gas to electric over a similar period. How much extra capacity that would require isn't known but it will be huge.
The bottom line is that it cannot be done in 15 or even 20 years. Even if they chucked everything including the kitchen sink at it starting today.
This hair brained idea is nothing more than politicians posturing and virtue signalling and will end in tears or, as is more likely, get kicked into the long grass in about 5 years time.
Like today as an example Great Britain's national grid right now (16:35) has a demand of 41.66GW
CCGT = Gas, is producing 20GW (48. 01%) of demand
Nuclear is producing 6.30GW (15.12%)
Wind is producing 4.78GW (11.47 %)
Biomass is producing 2.79GW (6.70%)
Coal is producing 2.36GW (5.67%)
French interconnect 2GW
Solar 0.91GW (2.18%)
Dutch interconnect 0.60GW (1.52%)
Our national energy plan is massively under prepared for any form of even semi sized increase of demand.
Absolutely right.
However the increase in demand required by electric cars and Ofgems plans would make the average "semi" look like Windsor Castle."
Glad to see i could add a new slant on this .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I feel bigger taxes for petrol/diesel car coming...Yes folks another green tax....going green will cost everyone lots of money ...and it's still bollocks ...Will India Russia China and alike join with us ....not a fucking chance ....so why should I give a shit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I feel bigger taxes for petrol/diesel car coming...Yes folks another green tax....going green will cost everyone lots of money ...and it's still bollocks ...Will India Russia China and alike join with us ....not a fucking chance ....so why should I give a shit "
I agree, without the likes of China, India and USA making a big effort, what we do is of little significance globally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I feel bigger taxes for petrol/diesel car coming...Yes folks another green tax....going green will cost everyone lots of money ...and it's still bollocks ...Will India Russia China and alike join with us ....not a fucking chance ....so why should I give a shit "
Yes, it will cost lots. Less than climate change will cost in mitigation and conflict.
I'd rather spend it on wind farms, and solar panels than weapons and we walls.
Of the three countries that you mentioned both China and India have respectively the highest and fifth highest installed capacity of renewable energy on the planet and are growing.
It's difficult to say that they aren't doing anything.
Russia does look pretty bad but they have ratified the Paris climate accord though so they may do something because they don't want to lose faith.
There is a benefit in renewable energy from reduced oil drilling, accidents and general pollution anyway so what's not to like? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you don't believe climate change is a concern then there is no point to this other than energy security and drastically reducing pollution in urban areas."
Hydrogen provides energy security, Battery does not, it relies on 3rd world countries for the components.
Hydrogen just needs a tank, and can be produced all around the UK. However people are not letting the car companies wait to fix some issues with hydrogen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I feel bigger taxes for petrol/diesel car coming...Yes folks another green tax....going green will cost everyone lots of money ...and it's still bollocks ...Will India Russia China and alike join with us ....not a fucking chance ....so why should I give a shit
Yes, it will cost lots. Less than climate change will cost in mitigation and conflict.
I'd rather spend it on wind farms, and solar panels than weapons and we walls.
Of the three countries that you mentioned both China and India have respectively the highest and fifth highest installed capacity of renewable energy on the planet and are growing.
It's difficult to say that they aren't doing anything.
Russia does look pretty bad but they have ratified the Paris climate accord though so they may do something because they don't want to lose faith.
There is a benefit in renewable energy from reduced oil drilling, accidents and general pollution anyway so what's not to like?"
I fully agree that renewable energy is the way forward. However having it on a wish list is very different from actually realising it in the time scales that the politicians seem to keep plucking out of thin air.
As I've said before. To replace the ageing nuclear power stations, provide the electricity for millions of car charging points, Ofgens plans to phase out gas for home heating, and natural increase in demand from an increasing population just isn't achievable in 15 years, or anything like. Especially when, apart from a few windmills, there is virtually nothing even on the drawing board.
On the other subject. Yes it is true that China has the highest capacity when it comes to renewables. But that statement is very selective and isn't the full picture is it?.
Despite growth is the last few years China still only produces around 4% of its electric from wind (Britain is around 12%)
Also while Britain is de-commissioning coal fired power stations China is still building them at an astronomical rate.
Oh! And I don't see them banning petrol and diesel cars any time soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just to add to the above.
When it comes to pollution from cars Etc. In India half of the Tuk Tuks are still running around on two stroke. They ain't going electric any time soon either."
Ahh, Tuk Tuks, most hair raising ride of my life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just to add to the above.
When it comes to pollution from cars Etc. In India half of the Tuk Tuks are still running around on two stroke. They ain't going electric any time soon either.
Ahh, Tuk Tuks, most hair raising ride of my life "
I always thought that it couldn't get worse than Bangkok. That was until we got into one in Bangalore. It really felt like a near death experience. Not sure what would have killed us first, our driver or the clouds of blue smoke belching out of all the others.
Particulates? You could almost chew 'em
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Bad news for taxi drivers. "
.
They'll be no taxi drivers by 2035 anyhow, it will all be autonomous.
The age of mass jobs for the low skilled is almost over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
If you don't believe climate change is a concern then there is no point to this other than energy security and drastically reducing pollution in urban areas.
It may be that saving several thousand lives a year in pollution related deaths is not worth the price.
If climate change is a concern then the sooner the switch away from CO2 the better because the cost of a severe change in the climate will be far higher than anything paid to make the change.
Taxes will be raised by other means. As suggested, probably pay by the mile which will probably encourage increased use of mass transport (assuming the investment is made) and ride-sharing/hailing like Uber.
This target will drive Hydrogen fuel cells for use as fuel. This will reduce the production bottleneck of materials for batteries.
Massive investment in nationwide infrastructure for hydrogen or electric charging is needed.
However, the automotive industry was not consulted about this and is on a downturn. Their development plans will not meet this without government support.
There is no government plan for this.
There is still no plan for building adequate electricity generation capacity. This will need massive infrastructure investment.
There is no government plan for this.
There is an opportunity to take a lead in this area that could then be sold worldwide.
There is no government plan for this.
It was really just an opportunity for Boris to have a photo next to David Attenborough and talk about how important the environment is."
.
3 months construction time and 30 million pounds per hydrogen station is the cost.
How many of them do you think we'll need?
Can you do the sums for us or will you just come back with your usual generic answer of it will cost less than climate change?. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
If you don't believe climate change is a concern then there is no point to this other than energy security and drastically reducing pollution in urban areas.
It may be that saving several thousand lives a year in pollution related deaths is not worth the price.
If climate change is a concern then the sooner the switch away from CO2 the better because the cost of a severe change in the climate will be far higher than anything paid to make the change.
Taxes will be raised by other means. As suggested, probably pay by the mile which will probably encourage increased use of mass transport (assuming the investment is made) and ride-sharing/hailing like Uber.
This target will drive Hydrogen fuel cells for use as fuel. This will reduce the production bottleneck of materials for batteries.
Massive investment in nationwide infrastructure for hydrogen or electric charging is needed.
However, the automotive industry was not consulted about this and is on a downturn. Their development plans will not meet this without government support.
There is no government plan for this.
There is still no plan for building adequate electricity generation capacity. This will need massive infrastructure investment.
There is no government plan for this.
There is an opportunity to take a lead in this area that could then be sold worldwide.
There is no government plan for this.
It was really just an opportunity for Boris to have a photo next to David Attenborough and talk about how important the environment is..
3 months construction time and 30 million pounds per hydrogen station is the cost.
How many of them do you think we'll need?
Can you do the sums for us or will you just come back with your usual generic answer of it will cost less than climate change?."
I'll have a stab at that.
How many do we need? Shitloads.
How much will it all cost? I think I'm going to need a bigger calculator. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I feel bigger taxes for petrol/diesel car coming...Yes folks another green tax....going green will cost everyone lots of money ...and it's still bollocks ...Will India Russia China and alike join with us ....not a fucking chance ....so why should I give a shit
Yes, it will cost lots. Less than climate change will cost in mitigation and conflict.
I'd rather spend it on wind farms, and solar panels than weapons and we walls.
Of the three countries that you mentioned both China and India have respectively the highest and fifth highest installed capacity of renewable energy on the planet and are growing.
It's difficult to say that they aren't doing anything.
Russia does look pretty bad but they have ratified the Paris climate accord though so they may do something because they don't want to lose faith.
There is a benefit in renewable energy from reduced oil drilling, accidents and general pollution anyway so what's not to like?
I fully agree that renewable energy is the way forward. However having it on a wish list is very different from actually realising it in the time scales that the politicians seem to keep plucking out of thin air.
As I've said before. To replace the ageing nuclear power stations, provide the electricity for millions of car charging points, Ofgens plans to phase out gas for home heating, and natural increase in demand from an increasing population just isn't achievable in 15 years, or anything like. Especially when, apart from a few windmills, there is virtually nothing even on the drawing board.
On the other subject. Yes it is true that China has the highest capacity when it comes to renewables. But that statement is very selective and isn't the full picture is it?.
Despite growth is the last few years China still only produces around 4% of its electric from wind (Britain is around 12%)
Also while Britain is de-commissioning coal fired power stations China is still building them at an astronomical rate.
Oh! And I don't see them banning petrol and diesel cars any time soon. "
There is a lot on the drawing board. It is really money and entrenched influence and a remaining dead hand of apathy that's holding up the rollout.
Imagine if all the money being spent on Uber, food delivery app development and the entire petrochemical industry was focused on renewables and nuclear.
It's not being selective. It's merely pushing back at the lazy thinking that countries such as China and India are not bothering so neither should we. It's an excuse.
Renewables aren't just wind either. It also includes biofuels, solar, geothermal, hydro, tidal and wave. The latter two still experimental. China generates 38% of it's power from these sources. I'd you expand the definition to low carbon then you also add nuclear.
China has more electric vehicles on the roads than anywhere else and pollution will drive that and hydrogen use for transportation all the harder. The same in India is also planning to push electric vehicles with plans for all buses to do so within to years.
Individuals are poor in theses parts of the world so the technology will not become economically attainable without heavy subsidy until manufacturing scales up. That's the real reason that petrol and diesel cars are relatively cheap. It's the sheer number being built giving economies of scale. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
If you don't believe climate change is a concern then there is no point to this other than energy security and drastically reducing pollution in urban areas.
It may be that saving several thousand lives a year in pollution related deaths is not worth the price.
If climate change is a concern then the sooner the switch away from CO2 the better because the cost of a severe change in the climate will be far higher than anything paid to make the change.
Taxes will be raised by other means. As suggested, probably pay by the mile which will probably encourage increased use of mass transport (assuming the investment is made) and ride-sharing/hailing like Uber.
This target will drive Hydrogen fuel cells for use as fuel. This will reduce the production bottleneck of materials for batteries.
Massive investment in nationwide infrastructure for hydrogen or electric charging is needed.
However, the automotive industry was not consulted about this and is on a downturn. Their development plans will not meet this without government support.
There is no government plan for this.
There is still no plan for building adequate electricity generation capacity. This will need massive infrastructure investment.
There is no government plan for this.
There is an opportunity to take a lead in this area that could then be sold worldwide.
There is no government plan for this.
It was really just an opportunity for Boris to have a photo next to David Attenborough and talk about how important the environment is..
3 months construction time and 30 million pounds per hydrogen station is the cost.
How many of them do you think we'll need?
Can you do the sums for us or will you just come back with your usual generic answer of it will cost less than climate change?.
I'll have a stab at that.
How many do we need? Shitloads.
How much will it all cost? I think I'm going to need a bigger calculator. "
.
These guys are great a googling "solutions" just not great in real world practically or logistics.
I mean there's 9000 petrol stations in the UK, so 3 months construction time for each converting them to hydrogen, one team can do four a year, that's 2250 years of work converting them at a cost of 27 billion pounds and all this to replace a vehicle that by 2035 will be most likely autonomous and hardly owned by anyone.
There not great at forward thinking either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
If you don't believe climate change is a concern then there is no point to this other than energy security and drastically reducing pollution in urban areas.
It may be that saving several thousand lives a year in pollution related deaths is not worth the price.
If climate change is a concern then the sooner the switch away from CO2 the better because the cost of a severe change in the climate will be far higher than anything paid to make the change.
Taxes will be raised by other means. As suggested, probably pay by the mile which will probably encourage increased use of mass transport (assuming the investment is made) and ride-sharing/hailing like Uber.
This target will drive Hydrogen fuel cells for use as fuel. This will reduce the production bottleneck of materials for batteries.
Massive investment in nationwide infrastructure for hydrogen or electric charging is needed.
However, the automotive industry was not consulted about this and is on a downturn. Their development plans will not meet this without government support.
There is no government plan for this.
There is still no plan for building adequate electricity generation capacity. This will need massive infrastructure investment.
There is no government plan for this.
There is an opportunity to take a lead in this area that could then be sold worldwide.
There is no government plan for this.
It was really just an opportunity for Boris to have a photo next to David Attenborough and talk about how important the environment is..
3 months construction time and 30 million pounds per hydrogen station is the cost.
How many of them do you think we'll need?
Can you do the sums for us or will you just come back with your usual generic answer of it will cost less than climate change?."
As a generic answer what issue do you have with it? Do you actually disagree?
The money is available in the private sector to achieve a very fast shift to nuclear and renewables should there be sufficient incentive.
Put price on the true environmental cost of hydrocarbons and see how quickly things change.
There is a huge body of data to support this.
There is no UK policy though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
If you don't believe climate change is a concern then there is no point to this other than energy security and drastically reducing pollution in urban areas.
It may be that saving several thousand lives a year in pollution related deaths is not worth the price.
If climate change is a concern then the sooner the switch away from CO2 the better because the cost of a severe change in the climate will be far higher than anything paid to make the change.
Taxes will be raised by other means. As suggested, probably pay by the mile which will probably encourage increased use of mass transport (assuming the investment is made) and ride-sharing/hailing like Uber.
This target will drive Hydrogen fuel cells for use as fuel. This will reduce the production bottleneck of materials for batteries.
Massive investment in nationwide infrastructure for hydrogen or electric charging is needed.
However, the automotive industry was not consulted about this and is on a downturn. Their development plans will not meet this without government support.
There is no government plan for this.
There is still no plan for building adequate electricity generation capacity. This will need massive infrastructure investment.
There is no government plan for this.
There is an opportunity to take a lead in this area that could then be sold worldwide.
There is no government plan for this.
It was really just an opportunity for Boris to have a photo next to David Attenborough and talk about how important the environment is..
3 months construction time and 30 million pounds per hydrogen station is the cost.
How many of them do you think we'll need?
Can you do the sums for us or will you just come back with your usual generic answer of it will cost less than climate change?.
As a generic answer what issue do you have with it? Do you actually disagree?
The money is available in the private sector to achieve a very fast shift to nuclear and renewables should there be sufficient incentive.
Put price on the true environmental cost of hydrocarbons and see how quickly things change.
There is a huge body of data to support this.
There is no UK policy though."
.
There's a lady climate professor from Cambridge university who's data concludes the only way to stop climate change is to let humans go extinct.
Data data data blah blah blah
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"
There's a lady climate professor from Cambridge university who's data concludes the only way to stop climate change is to let humans go extinct.
Data data data blah blah blah
"
The climate has changed.
We take up a huge amount of space as a species and our presence alone changes physical geography let alone anything else.
So yes, the only way to stop us from changing the climate at all is not to be on the planet.
That is self-evident but an utterly fatuous "point" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
There's a lady climate professor from Cambridge university who's data concludes the only way to stop climate change is to let humans go extinct.
Data data data blah blah blah
The climate has changed.
We take up a huge amount of space as a species and our presence alone changes physical geography let alone anything else.
So yes, the only way to stop us from changing the climate at all is not to be on the planet.
That is self-evident but an utterly fatuous "point" "
.
The second law of thermodynamics, were all doomed in the long run |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
If you don't believe climate change is a concern then there is no point to this other than energy security and drastically reducing pollution in urban areas.
It may be that saving several thousand lives a year in pollution related deaths is not worth the price.
If climate change is a concern then the sooner the switch away from CO2 the better because the cost of a severe change in the climate will be far higher than anything paid to make the change.
Taxes will be raised by other means. As suggested, probably pay by the mile which will probably encourage increased use of mass transport (assuming the investment is made) and ride-sharing/hailing like Uber.
This target will drive Hydrogen fuel cells for use as fuel. This will reduce the production bottleneck of materials for batteries.
Massive investment in nationwide infrastructure for hydrogen or electric charging is needed.
However, the automotive industry was not consulted about this and is on a downturn. Their development plans will not meet this without government support.
There is no government plan for this.
There is still no plan for building adequate electricity generation capacity. This will need massive infrastructure investment.
There is no government plan for this.
There is an opportunity to take a lead in this area that could then be sold worldwide.
There is no government plan for this.
It was really just an opportunity for Boris to have a photo next to David Attenborough and talk about how important the environment is..
3 months construction time and 30 million pounds per hydrogen station is the cost.
How many of them do you think we'll need?
Can you do the sums for us or will you just come back with your usual generic answer of it will cost less than climate change?.
As a generic answer what issue do you have with it? Do you actually disagree?
The money is available in the private sector to achieve a very fast shift to nuclear and renewables should there be sufficient incentive.
Put price on the true environmental cost of hydrocarbons and see how quickly things change.
There is a huge body of data to support this.
There is no UK policy though."
When you say a "very fast shift" how fast is very?
I actually agree with you about shifting to renewables but politicians dreaming up unachievable targets and setting equally unachievable dates will only dig us into a deeper hole.
As I've posted above, it will take massive investment just for Britain to stand still, let alone implement these hair brained ideas.
Between now and 2035 around 15% of the capacity has to be replaced as the older nuclear stations are closed. That in itself is around another 10,000 plus windmills only to stand still. Then there is the working life of one which is generally regarded to be around 25 years. So most of the 10,000 we already have will be due for replacement as well. And we still haven't started with 1kw of extra to charge all the bloody cars.
To replace with nuclear can never be "very fast". Even when they start building one it's around 10 years to completion, and the only one currently planned is still on the drawing board 10 years later.
They would need to start building at least half a dozen from today to get even close. And that would be on top of all the windmills mentioned above.
Also remember that electricity generating capacity is only half of the story. Millions of charging points, battery production (and disposal) and range are all issues to be addressed, and Boris thinks that all of that can be done in 15 years. On top of his latest madcap 20 billion quid idea to build a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Like I've said. It's great wish list but it is completely detached from reality. No matter how much money is chucked at it.
Jeez! They can't even get their arse into gear to build a bloody railway line yet they really think they can do that lot. Dream on.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Does this government have a brain cell between them ? they want to scrap all vehicles which bring in extra tax duty, 2018 /19 was a mere £27.9 Billion.
How many jobs will be lost ? how much duty going to be lost ? and most important... how are they going to get that moeny back ?.
If you don't believe climate change is a concern then there is no point to this other than energy security and drastically reducing pollution in urban areas.
It may be that saving several thousand lives a year in pollution related deaths is not worth the price.
If climate change is a concern then the sooner the switch away from CO2 the better because the cost of a severe change in the climate will be far higher than anything paid to make the change.
Taxes will be raised by other means. As suggested, probably pay by the mile which will probably encourage increased use of mass transport (assuming the investment is made) and ride-sharing/hailing like Uber.
This target will drive Hydrogen fuel cells for use as fuel. This will reduce the production bottleneck of materials for batteries.
Massive investment in nationwide infrastructure for hydrogen or electric charging is needed.
However, the automotive industry was not consulted about this and is on a downturn. Their development plans will not meet this without government support.
There is no government plan for this.
There is still no plan for building adequate electricity generation capacity. This will need massive infrastructure investment.
There is no government plan for this.
There is an opportunity to take a lead in this area that could then be sold worldwide.
There is no government plan for this.
It was really just an opportunity for Boris to have a photo next to David Attenborough and talk about how important the environment is..
3 months construction time and 30 million pounds per hydrogen station is the cost.
How many of them do you think we'll need?
Can you do the sums for us or will you just come back with your usual generic answer of it will cost less than climate change?.
As a generic answer what issue do you have with it? Do you actually disagree?
The money is available in the private sector to achieve a very fast shift to nuclear and renewables should there be sufficient incentive.
Put price on the true environmental cost of hydrocarbons and see how quickly things change.
There is a huge body of data to support this.
There is no UK policy though.
When you say a "very fast shift" how fast is very?
I actually agree with you about shifting to renewables but politicians dreaming up unachievable targets and setting equally unachievable dates will only dig us into a deeper hole.
As I've posted above, it will take massive investment just for Britain to stand still, let alone implement these hair brained ideas.
Between now and 2035 around 15% of the capacity has to be replaced as the older nuclear stations are closed. That in itself is around another 10,000 plus windmills only to stand still. Then there is the working life of one which is generally regarded to be around 25 years. So most of the 10,000 we already have will be due for replacement as well. And we still haven't started with 1kw of extra to charge all the bloody cars.
To replace with nuclear can never be "very fast". Even when they start building one it's around 10 years to completion, and the only one currently planned is still on the drawing board 10 years later.
They would need to start building at least half a dozen from today to get even close. And that would be on top of all the windmills mentioned above.
Also remember that electricity generating capacity is only half of the story. Millions of charging points, battery production (and disposal) and range are all issues to be addressed, and Boris thinks that all of that can be done in 15 years. On top of his latest madcap 20 billion quid idea to build a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Like I've said. It's great wish list but it is completely detached from reality. No matter how much money is chucked at it.
Jeez! They can't even get their arse into gear to build a bloody railway line yet they really think they can do that lot. Dream on.
"
As I said, Johnson is just trying to look environmentally friendly and sit next to David Attenborough.
Publicity and spin. No plan to deliver. He doesn't do "detail" or, in fact, "reality".
20-30 years for carbon neutrality is difficult but certainly not infeasible.
I did suggest how the money could be made available. Once carbon is priced, the private sector will allocate the money, government just needs to legislate for it.p
Of course this will take investment and of course it will be difficult.
Having identified the problem, the next step is to do something about it. In fact, that's already happened. The next step is to accelerate the process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If everyone was willing to throw the necessary money and manpower into this then it might be possibly doable but just look at HS2 as a recent example of the UK doing a big project....
Creating the infrastructure to go green in the small time frame will make the planning of HS2 look like organising a kids tea party in comparison |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"If everyone was willing to throw the necessary money and manpower into this then it might be possibly doable but just look at HS2 as a recent example of the UK doing a big project....
Creating the infrastructure to go green in the small time frame will make the planning of HS2 look like organising a kids tea party in comparison "
HS2 was mismanaged and misprioritised. Extra rail capacity is still needed and in a crowded country that does not confiscate property without compensation it will be expensive regardless.
Decarbonisation can be achieved in a reasonable period.
Probably best achieved if the government steps back and enables academia and industry to come up with a plan and just provide oversight on regulation and planning. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If everyone was willing to throw the necessary money and manpower into this then it might be possibly doable but just look at HS2 as a recent example of the UK doing a big project....
Creating the infrastructure to go green in the small time frame will make the planning of HS2 look like organising a kids tea party in comparison "
.
That's because they can't forward think, 90% of cars are parked up all day doing nothing, instead of spending trillions on infrastructure change to hydrogen that may or may not be feasible we could just autonomise the transport sector and shift into working from home, spilt patterns reducing the need for millions of vehicles or hydrogen stations.
One thing we forget in conversation is not how hard it is generating new power that's relatively easy compared to its grid system which moves it around, that needs doubling in capacity if your going to generate big remote capacity (nuclear, CGR, wind farms, solar farms, tidal).
That's digging up every road and Street in the UK and laying new cables, millions and millions of tones of copper and aluminium, hundreds of thousands of sub stations, thousands of main stations, tens of thousands of pylons, it is monumental in scope and would require millions of fully trained ready to go workers to even get it done in 30 years and right now all that energy would be coming from hydrocarbons giving out C02?.
Now your going to have think smart and forward think an awful lot to get this done and cars owned by everybody is not in the equation. Small scale generation at point of source, ie housing is definitely where were going to need to start to mitigate grid upgrades.
The one thing I do agree with easy guy in is the government are willfully ignorant on this, all of them and every colour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If everyone was willing to throw the necessary money and manpower into this then it might be possibly doable but just look at HS2 as a recent example of the UK doing a big project....
Creating the infrastructure to go green in the small time frame will make the planning of HS2 look like organising a kids tea party in comparison
HS2 was mismanaged and misprioritised. Extra rail capacity is still needed and in a crowded country that does not confiscate property without compensation it will be expensive regardless.
Decarbonisation can be achieved in a reasonable period.
Probably best achieved if the government steps back and enables academia and industry to come up with a plan and just provide oversight on regulation and planning."
And those last three words completely sum up why it cannot and won't happen.
"Regulation and planning"
Firstly planning. Every NIMBY between Lands End and John O'Groats will want a public enquiry as to why the new nuclear/solar/wind farm should be somewhere else. Also every environmentalist pressure group will object to everything to save the endangered three striped lesser spotted swamp moth.
Regulation? Shit, where do I start with that one?
After god knows how many risk assessments, environmental impact reports, feasibility studies, inclusivity reports, and God knows what else. Maybe in around 10 years some geezer will actually lay a brick. That is of course if being a geezer isn't sex or something else "ist"
The Chinese might be able to build a hospital in 10 days. Britain has been talking about building a nuclear power station (Hinkley Point C) for 10 years and actual work still hasn't started.
All this "if the investment" "if the will is there" blah blah blah is bollox. Because if anyone actually got the investment (which they won't) or anyone had the will (which as yet no-one has) then the "business prevention officers" of which Britain has more than its fair share, will shoot it down in flames at the first hurdle.
14 years 9 months three weeks and counting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Told ya my plastic straw ,carrier bag, etc ...counts for shit all so I'm keeping my pickup truck van bikes and sports cars ...so there  "
I do enjoy how you brag about your ignorance.
But on a wider point. There seems to be a trend of putting down anyone who learns about a subject. Meanwhile championing the opinions of the ignorant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And those last three words completely sum up why it cannot and won't happen.
"Regulation and planning"
Firstly planning. Every NIMBY between Lands End and John O'Groats will want a public enquiry as to why the new nuclear/solar/wind farm should be somewhere else. Also every environmentalist pressure group will object to everything to save the endangered three striped lesser spotted swamp moth.
Regulation? Shit, where do I start with that one?
After god knows how many risk assessments, environmental impact reports, feasibility studies, inclusivity reports, and God knows what else. Maybe in around 10 years some geezer will actually lay a brick. That is of course if being a geezer isn't sex or something else "ist"
The Chinese might be able to build a hospital in 10 days. Britain has been talking about building a nuclear power station (Hinkley Point C) for 10 years and actual work still hasn't started.
All this "if the investment" "if the will is there" blah blah blah is bollox. Because if anyone actually got the investment (which they won't) or anyone had the will (which as yet no-one has) then the "business prevention officers" of which Britain has more than its fair share, will shoot it down in flames at the first hurdle.
14 years 9 months three weeks and counting."
**********************
Spot on post, in my opinion.
Thank you..!
Eva |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thankyou for your personal concerns ...I will leave you to champion the good causes ...truck on"
Yeah exactly. It's interesting.
As if "good causes" are somehow bad.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My sister is driving about in mine, she borrowed it to attend an interview.....
When? oh.... middle of January.....!!
Ne'er mind, got me trusty MX5 still....
X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let's lead a protest ...petrol heads unite...fuck the planet ...pedal to the metal burn rubber and have fun ....Yes fun...."
A load of confused people driving around all day in cars.
Sounds amazing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If everyone was willing to throw the necessary money and manpower into this then it might be possibly doable but just look at HS2 as a recent example of the UK doing a big project....
Creating the infrastructure to go green in the small time frame will make the planning of HS2 look like organising a kids tea party in comparison
HS2 was mismanaged and misprioritised. Extra rail capacity is still needed and in a crowded country that does not confiscate property without compensation it will be expensive regardless.
Decarbonisation can be achieved in a reasonable period.
Probably best achieved if the government steps back and enables academia and industry to come up with a plan and just provide oversight on regulation and planning.
And those last three words completely sum up why it cannot and won't happen.
"Regulation and planning"
Firstly planning. Every NIMBY between Lands End and John O'Groats will want a public enquiry as to why the new nuclear/solar/wind farm should be somewhere else. Also every environmentalist pressure group will object to everything to save the endangered three striped lesser spotted swamp moth.
Regulation? Shit, where do I start with that one?
After god knows how many risk assessments, environmental impact reports, feasibility studies, inclusivity reports, and God knows what else. Maybe in around 10 years some geezer will actually lay a brick. That is of course if being a geezer isn't sex or something else "ist"
The Chinese might be able to build a hospital in 10 days. Britain has been talking about building a nuclear power station (Hinkley Point C) for 10 years and actual work still hasn't started.
All this "if the investment" "if the will is there" blah blah blah is bollox. Because if anyone actually got the investment (which they won't) or anyone had the will (which as yet no-one has) then the "business prevention officers" of which Britain has more than its fair share, will shoot it down in flames at the first hurdle.
14 years 9 months three weeks and counting."
Hinkly Point C construction is well underway, reactor bases are cast in as of June 2019. I've seen them, done some work for the project.
Current programme says 2025 for first generation, can't see it myself though.
More nuclear stations are needed though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
