Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just another globalist stooge. Net Zero is just one big game of pass the parcel. At some point some sucker in the West is going to be left holding the parcel and is going to have to admit that the whole thing has been a waste of time and nothing has been achieved. By then of course we will all be cleaning toilets for the Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans." Boris is going as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just another globalist stooge. Net Zero is just one big game of pass the parcel. At some point some sucker in the West is going to be left holding the parcel and is going to have to admit that the whole thing has been a waste of time and nothing has been achieved. By then of course we will all be cleaning toilets for the Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans." I was criticised for saying that he lacks the required commitment to the UK to be PM. Started to think I was wrong when he said he wasn’t going as his priority was to stay & focus on UK matters. As ever, judge people by what they do, not what they say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision  "Not sure the exact time line but seems he decided to go after Boris said he is going. Possibly more political than actually wanting to go | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision
Not sure the exact time line but seems he decided to go after Boris said he is going. Possibly more political than actually wanting to go"Possibly, but a good decision nonetheless , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision
Not sure the exact time line but seems he decided to go after Boris said he is going. Possibly more political than actually wanting to go
Possibly, but a good decision nonetheless , "The lady from the greens called it a screeching U turn but that's politicians for you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision
Not sure the exact time line but seems he decided to go after Boris said he is going. Possibly more political than actually wanting to go
Possibly, but a good decision nonetheless ,
The lady from the greens called it a screeching U turn but that's politicians for you"It is an embarrassing U turn, but that is what the Tories do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just another globalist stooge. Net Zero is just one big game of pass the parcel. At some point some sucker in the West is going to be left holding the parcel and is going to have to admit that the whole thing has been a waste of time and nothing has been achieved. By then of course we will all be cleaning toilets for the Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans. I was criticised for saying that he lacks the required commitment to the UK to be PM. Started to think I was wrong when he said he wasn’t going as his priority was to stay & focus on UK matters. As ever, judge people by what they do, not what they say." NO NO NO!!! You were criticised for saying, and I quote, “Sunak isn’t British” Really Seb you are showing very poor form. Not one person, not even the Tory fanboys, has said you were wrong for questioning his loyalty or commitment to Britain. But saying he isn’t British  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just another globalist stooge. Net Zero is just one big game of pass the parcel. At some point some sucker in the West is going to be left holding the parcel and is going to have to admit that the whole thing has been a waste of time and nothing has been achieved. By then of course we will all be cleaning toilets for the Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans. I was criticised for saying that he lacks the required commitment to the UK to be PM. Started to think I was wrong when he said he wasn’t going as his priority was to stay & focus on UK matters. As ever, judge people by what they do, not what they say. NO NO NO!!! You were criticised for saying, and I quote, “Sunak isn’t British” Really Seb you are showing very poor form. Not one person, not even the Tory fanboys, has said you were wrong for questioning his loyalty or commitment to Britain. But saying he isn’t British "And I took that criticism if you remember? I conceded by the location of his birth that he is British. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just another globalist stooge. Net Zero is just one big game of pass the parcel. At some point some sucker in the West is going to be left holding the parcel and is going to have to admit that the whole thing has been a waste of time and nothing has been achieved. By then of course we will all be cleaning toilets for the Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans. I was criticised for saying that he lacks the required commitment to the UK to be PM. Started to think I was wrong when he said he wasn’t going as his priority was to stay & focus on UK matters. As ever, judge people by what they do, not what they say. NO NO NO!!! You were criticised for saying, and I quote, “Sunak isn’t British” Really Seb you are showing very poor form. Not one person, not even the Tory fanboys, has said you were wrong for questioning his loyalty or commitment to Britain. But saying he isn’t British
And I took that criticism if you remember? I conceded by the location of his birth that he is British. "So you now need to concede another time for the incorrect statement made above! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision
Not sure the exact time line but seems he decided to go after Boris said he is going. Possibly more political than actually wanting to go
Possibly, but a good decision nonetheless ,
The lady from the greens called it a screeching U turn but that's politicians for you
It is an embarrassing U turn, but that is what the Tories do "Did not take long either from becoming PM to embarrassing U turn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision
Not sure the exact time line but seems he decided to go after Boris said he is going. Possibly more political than actually wanting to go
Possibly, but a good decision nonetheless ,
The lady from the greens called it a screeching U turn but that's politicians for you
It is an embarrassing U turn, but that is what the Tories do
Did not take long either from becoming PM to embarrassing U turn"I don't think it's embarrassing. They generally don't care about going back on their word. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have been the actual benefits of these meetings? Can we measure any real successes other than promises or cleverly worded claims to net zero? I see the same plastics, cars, deforestation and pretty much everything as it was, is as it is now. What am I missing?" Probably missing a great piss up. That’s why Boris is going. I was in Glasgow last year - my god! What a huge circus it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have been the actual benefits of these meetings? Can we measure any real successes other than promises or cleverly worded claims to net zero? I see the same plastics, cars, deforestation and pretty much everything as it was, is as it is now. What am I missing?" You're not missing anything. It's a big show to make it look like they care. Meanwhile they all take donations from oil companies and will serve their needs through policy. Some small things change. Plastic bag usage, Lula in Brazil pledged to stop the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. But really, these are small token gestures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have been the actual benefits of these meetings? Can we measure any real successes other than promises or cleverly worded claims to net zero? I see the same plastics, cars, deforestation and pretty much everything as it was, is as it is now. What am I missing?" Not much, I guess it’s more about raising awareness, it is perfect but it’s a start. I was in Glasgow last year and there was a great atmosphere, it gets people talking about the serious issues causing climate change | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision "It is but BoJo saying he was going forced his hand as he would not look statesmanlike whilst BoJo would. Minimising its importance and not letting the King go indicated priorities other than reducing climate change. Ironically, embracing this shift and leading it is the biggest global economic opportunity that exists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is he taking King Charles? One the most prominent Climate campaigners of our time? How do they get away with claiming EVs are ZERO Emission when up to 77% of the Grid Electricity charging them is from Gas fired power stations? I have a Nissan and the ONLY time it is 100% Zero is when I charge it at home via Solar!!" That's disengeniuous. The grid can be shifted to renewables and nuclear. Combustion engines cars cannot. The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have been the actual benefits of these meetings? Can we measure any real successes other than promises or cleverly worded claims to net zero? I see the same plastics, cars, deforestation and pretty much everything as it was, is as it is now. What am I missing?" You are missing the leaders that chose not to implement the agreements. That is always an option if you deny there's a problem and are only interested in the status quo and making money. Are you saying that you have not noticed more electric vehicles and that there is globally significantly more renewable energy being generated? Companies making net zero commitments further driving the market? A shift in investment? You've not noticed any of that? It's possible. These things happen slowly and are normalised so it's not associated directly with any event. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just another globalist stooge. Net Zero is just one big game of pass the parcel. At some point some sucker in the West is going to be left holding the parcel and is going to have to admit that the whole thing has been a waste of time and nothing has been achieved. By then of course we will all be cleaning toilets for the Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans." Are you aware that the cost of installation and generation from renewables is several multiples lower than fossil fuels and far more secure? Why would you not want that and to have an industry leading these new technologies rather than clinging onto the old like Kodak and Blockbuster? In principle; why should we not be cleaning toilets for Chinese, Indians and Mexicans any more than them cleaning ours? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have been the actual benefits of these meetings? Can we measure any real successes other than promises or cleverly worded claims to net zero? I see the same plastics, cars, deforestation and pretty much everything as it was, is as it is now. What am I missing? You are missing the leaders that chose not to implement the agreements. That is always an option if you deny there's a problem and are only interested in the status quo and making money. Are you saying that you have not noticed more electric vehicles and that there is globally significantly more renewable energy being generated? Companies making net zero commitments further driving the market? A shift in investment? You've not noticed any of that? It's possible. These things happen slowly and are normalised so it's not associated directly with any event." I have noticed more EV's but are they significantly better? Electricity needs to be produced, the car needs to be produced how much smaller is the footprint? However clean air, is a massive tick in the box for me. The companies making net zero commitments, are they really getting there or are they pushing numbers around to make it look that way. The way a business will say if I have 1000 employees and they all leave work 1 minute early I have lost 1000 minutes, or 16 hours, that is 2 FTE worth of time lost a day. The time is concurrent, it is a minute. I'm waffling but my point is, how much progress is actually being made, is it enough? Or is it the $$$$$'s in what we produce today that keeps us crawling along? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have been the actual benefits of these meetings? Can we measure any real successes other than promises or cleverly worded claims to net zero? I see the same plastics, cars, deforestation and pretty much everything as it was, is as it is now. What am I missing? You are missing the leaders that chose not to implement the agreements. That is always an option if you deny there's a problem and are only interested in the status quo and making money. Are you saying that you have not noticed more electric vehicles and that there is globally significantly more renewable energy being generated? Companies making net zero commitments further driving the market? A shift in investment? You've not noticed any of that? It's possible. These things happen slowly and are normalised so it's not associated directly with any event. I have noticed more EV's but are they significantly better? Electricity needs to be produced, the car needs to be produced how much smaller is the footprint? However clean air, is a massive tick in the box for me. The companies making net zero commitments, are they really getting there or are they pushing numbers around to make it look that way. The way a business will say if I have 1000 employees and they all leave work 1 minute early I have lost 1000 minutes, or 16 hours, that is 2 FTE worth of time lost a day. The time is concurrent, it is a minute. I'm waffling but my point is, how much progress is actually being made, is it enough? Or is it the $$$$$'s in what we produce today that keeps us crawling along? " Have a look and come to your own conclusion. Is this a significant advance in such a short period of time? Can the grid be decarbonise faster and more efficiently than millions of individual internal combustion engines? Is there greenwashing? Of course. Is there also a significant shift in capital? Again, you need to decide for yourself. There has always been a problem with companies and societies being unable to envision anything better than what they know and what is in front of them. There is also always a pull to certainty and short-term benefit. So many talk about innovation and development and taking opportunities and then fight it every step of the way when it comes... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Feel a bit sorry for Sunak- damned if he goes and damned if he doesn't. He was criticised for choosing not to go but would of been criticized if he went for not staying and fixing the problems here. Personally I'd rather be stayed here and addressed the more immediate issues faced and sent the environmental minister instead " I'd rather he go. He has no interest in tackling any of the problems here anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision
Not sure the exact time line but seems he decided to go after Boris said he is going. Possibly more political than actually wanting to go
Possibly, but a good decision nonetheless ,
The lady from the greens called it a screeching U turn but that's politicians for you
It is an embarrassing U turn, but that is what the Tories do
Did not take long either from becoming PM to embarrassing U turn
I don't think it's embarrassing. They generally don't care about going back on their word."Probably not. So if Rishi is now going, does Boris also need to go? What capacity is he going in? I hear he is invited but not sure why. Also think in the theme of climate change they should send the minimum amount of people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision
Not sure the exact time line but seems he decided to go after Boris said he is going. Possibly more political than actually wanting to go
Possibly, but a good decision nonetheless ,
The lady from the greens called it a screeching U turn but that's politicians for you
It is an embarrassing U turn, but that is what the Tories do
Did not take long either from becoming PM to embarrassing U turn
I don't think it's embarrassing. They generally don't care about going back on their word.
Probably not. So if Rishi is now going, does Boris also need to go? What capacity is he going in? I hear he is invited but not sure why. Also think in the theme of climate change they should send the minimum amount of people"Seeing as Boris doesn't understand climate change, isn't the PM, and is a buffoon, personally I would let him anywhere near. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Feel a bit sorry for Sunak- damned if he goes and damned if he doesn't. He was criticised for choosing not to go but would of been criticized if he went for not staying and fixing the problems here. Personally I'd rather be stayed here and addressed the more immediate issues faced and sent the environmental minister instead " He can have an immediate influence at COP face to face. He will still be reviewing what is being worked on for the economy. He's the Prime Minister now, not the Chancellor. It's delegated responsibility. Micro managers are always a disaster... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sensible decision
Not sure the exact time line but seems he decided to go after Boris said he is going. Possibly more political than actually wanting to go
Possibly, but a good decision nonetheless ,
The lady from the greens called it a screeching U turn but that's politicians for you
It is an embarrassing U turn, but that is what the Tories do
Did not take long either from becoming PM to embarrassing U turn
I don't think it's embarrassing. They generally don't care about going back on their word.
Probably not. So if Rishi is now going, does Boris also need to go? What capacity is he going in? I hear he is invited but not sure why. Also think in the theme of climate change they should send the minimum amount of people
Seeing as Boris doesn't understand climate change, isn't the PM, and is a buffoon, personally I would let him anywhere near."Actually, this is the only thing he actually has a talent for. Boosterism. If you can actually point it at something positive, it has some value. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Feel a bit sorry for Sunak- damned if he goes and damned if he doesn't. He was criticised for choosing not to go but would of been criticized if he went for not staying and fixing the problems here. Personally I'd rather be stayed here and addressed the more immediate issues faced and sent the environmental minister instead He can have an immediate influence at COP face to face. He will still be reviewing what is being worked on for the economy. He's the Prime Minister now, not the Chancellor. It's delegated responsibility. Micro managers are always a disaster..." What influence will be have? Britain's emissions are minimal, all that matters is what China, the US, and India do. Everything else is irrelevant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Feel a bit sorry for Sunak- damned if he goes and damned if he doesn't. He was criticised for choosing not to go but would of been criticized if he went for not staying and fixing the problems here. Personally I'd rather be stayed here and addressed the more immediate issues faced and sent the environmental minister instead He can have an immediate influence at COP face to face. He will still be reviewing what is being worked on for the economy. He's the Prime Minister now, not the Chancellor. It's delegated responsibility. Micro managers are always a disaster... What influence will be have? Britain's emissions are minimal, all that matters is what China, the US, and India do. Everything else is irrelevant. " Rishi Sunak and Boris think it is important | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Feel a bit sorry for Sunak- damned if he goes and damned if he doesn't. He was criticised for choosing not to go but would of been criticized if he went for not staying and fixing the problems here. Personally I'd rather be stayed here and addressed the more immediate issues faced and sent the environmental minister instead He can have an immediate influence at COP face to face. He will still be reviewing what is being worked on for the economy. He's the Prime Minister now, not the Chancellor. It's delegated responsibility. Micro managers are always a disaster... What influence will be have? Britain's emissions are minimal, all that matters is what China, the US, and India do. Everything else is irrelevant. Rishi Sunak and Boris think it is important " They think it's important to be seen there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Feel a bit sorry for Sunak- damned if he goes and damned if he doesn't. He was criticised for choosing not to go but would of been criticized if he went for not staying and fixing the problems here. Personally I'd rather be stayed here and addressed the more immediate issues faced and sent the environmental minister instead He can have an immediate influence at COP face to face. He will still be reviewing what is being worked on for the economy. He's the Prime Minister now, not the Chancellor. It's delegated responsibility. Micro managers are always a disaster... What influence will be have? Britain's emissions are minimal, all that matters is what China, the US, and India do. Everything else is irrelevant. Rishi Sunak and Boris think it is important They think it's important to be seen there." Never miss a party those two! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Feel a bit sorry for Sunak- damned if he goes and damned if he doesn't. He was criticised for choosing not to go but would of been criticized if he went for not staying and fixing the problems here. Personally I'd rather be stayed here and addressed the more immediate issues faced and sent the environmental minister instead He can have an immediate influence at COP face to face. He will still be reviewing what is being worked on for the economy. He's the Prime Minister now, not the Chancellor. It's delegated responsibility. Micro managers are always a disaster... What influence will be have? Britain's emissions are minimal, all that matters is what China, the US, and India do. Everything else is irrelevant. " Ah. You believe that the UK has no political or economic influence in the world then? Sounds very anti-British to me. Why belittle or country this way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Feel a bit sorry for Sunak- damned if he goes and damned if he doesn't. He was criticised for choosing not to go but would of been criticized if he went for not staying and fixing the problems here. Personally I'd rather be stayed here and addressed the more immediate issues faced and sent the environmental minister instead He can have an immediate influence at COP face to face. He will still be reviewing what is being worked on for the economy. He's the Prime Minister now, not the Chancellor. It's delegated responsibility. Micro managers are always a disaster... What influence will be have? Britain's emissions are minimal, all that matters is what China, the US, and India do. Everything else is irrelevant. Rishi Sunak and Boris think it is important They think it's important to be seen there." Same thing, anyway, you voted for Boris and you will vote for Sunak so you must be happy with their attendance  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway." It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems." What a naive take. You aren't dumb. Are you just not able to think clearly because I posted it? The pace of change will remain too slow if fossil fuel companies retain massive, market distorting subsidies and influence and if new industries and research is not protected, just as the fossil fuel industry was and still is. Poorer countries also need support in dealing with the consequences of climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems." Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products." You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover." What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself." I have an electric car and it is amazing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing "Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back."You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon "Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places. There are only three types of people who buy electric cars: 1. Hair shirt eco nuts 2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well 3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
"Pmsl, a diesel? I can get an 80% charge in 30 mins, 0-60 in 3.1 seconds and a top speed of 160mph and a range of 300 miles and you think electric cars are rubbish  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
"There are 3 types of people who own a diesel 1. Farmers 2. Old people 3 people who think diesels are economical | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself." Then you are misinformed. They cannot build electric cars fast enough. How come you are always so misinformed? Hear pumps not so straightforward as there are no economies of scale yet. Certainly should be standard for new build. Everyone is poorer now because of the cost of fossil fuels going through the roof and being completely out of our control. You seem to want to have to pay a premium for energy. Why is that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
"You are quite correct to use your diesel until it falls to pieces. It is, actually, the most environmentally friendly thing to do. Then you will buy an electric vehicle unless you desperately want to spend more money on transport than you have to. Well done | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
There are 3 types of people who own a diesel
1. Farmers
2. Old people
3 people who think diesels are economical "I own a diesel. Its extremely low emissions mean that I pay zero road tax on it. It's an estate car, which I need for my business. I'm more than happy with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
There are 3 types of people who own a diesel
1. Farmers
2. Old people
3 people who think diesels are economical
I own a diesel. Its extremely low emissions mean that I pay zero road tax on it.
It's an estate car, which I need for my business.
I'm more than happy with it. "I was joking, it was a retort to the post about electric car drivers, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
"Have you seen the new(ish) Audi etron GT? Thing of beauty. Happy to be a poseur in that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
Have you seen the new(ish) Audi etron GT? Thing of beauty. Happy to be a poseur in that "Hope you've got £90k stashed away! Most electric cars are out of normal people's price range. The few people that I know that have them, have them on lease. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
"Modern Diesel engines are things of wonder and beauty. I’m old enough to remember when they were dirty and noisy ‘you will never get a shag if you drive a diesel’ a saying from the time. Development by skilled engineers changed this. Don’t forget, we were encouraged by the government of the day, Labour if I recall? to go diesel. Probably on the advice of ‘experts’, probably the same ‘experts’ who are now pushing EV’s. Possibly descendants of the ‘experts’ that warned in the early 1900s that by 1950 Londoners would be knee deep in horse shit! Remember - an ‘expert’ is a drip under pressure. Remember also, you cannot feed eight billion people without diesel and the infernal combustion engine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
Have you seen the new(ish) Audi etron GT? Thing of beauty. Happy to be a poseur in that
Hope you've got £90k stashed away!
Most electric cars are out of normal people's price range. The few people that I know that have them, have them on lease.
"Far from ‘rubbish ‘ though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
Have you seen the new(ish) Audi etron GT? Thing of beauty. Happy to be a poseur in that
Hope you've got £90k stashed away!
Most electric cars are out of normal people's price range. The few people that I know that have them, have them on lease.
"And it’s almost impossible to get finance or a PCP on a used one. Meaning uncertainty of trade in prices. Motoring for millions of hard working families is coming to an end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway." "It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems." "The pace of change will remain too slow if fossil fuel companies retain massive, market distorting subsidies and influence and if new industries and research is not protected, just as the fossil fuel industry was and still is." But your original statement said that even "the biggest polluters" are shifting to 'renewables'. The biggest polluters are the fossil fuel companies, right? If they are shifting to renewables, then they can't also be holding back the pace of change. If the fossil fuel companies are backing away from fossil fuels, then the climate problem is already half solved. Unless of course your first statement wasn't very accurate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. The pace of change will remain too slow if fossil fuel companies retain massive, market distorting subsidies and influence and if new industries and research is not protected, just as the fossil fuel industry was and still is. But your original statement said that even "the biggest polluters" are shifting to 'renewables'. The biggest polluters are the fossil fuel companies, right? If they are shifting to renewables, then they can't also be holding back the pace of change. If the fossil fuel companies are backing away from fossil fuels, then the climate problem is already half solved. Unless of course your first statement wasn't very accurate." You're no fool, but wanting to prove me wrong gets you to the wrong place. You seem to stop looking when you believe you've found a "gotcha". The biggest polluters are not the fossil fuel companies. They don't actually burn much fuel and generate much pollution. Some leaks and off-gassing and transportation, but they don't use their own products much. The big users of fossil fuels are shifting because the alternatives are increasingly cheaper and more secure than fossil fuels. There is certainly a huge investment needed in grid connectivity and storage and/or other base load options like nuclear but leading to a better outcome than more of the same. That's not even including the benefits of minimising the consequences of climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
There are 3 types of people who own a diesel
1. Farmers
2. Old people
3 people who think diesels are economical
I own a diesel. Its extremely low emissions mean that I pay zero road tax on it.
It's an estate car, which I need for my business.
I'm more than happy with it. "It is nowhere near zero emissions nor will it ever become cleaner over time as an EV will. No reason not to keep your diesel until you need to change it. There are EV estates and will be more although the trend for all vehicles has been towards SUVs for some time. For no good reason really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
There are 3 types of people who own a diesel
1. Farmers
2. Old people
3 people who think diesels are economical
I own a diesel. Its extremely low emissions mean that I pay zero road tax on it.
It's an estate car, which I need for my business.
I'm more than happy with it.
It is nowhere near zero emissions nor will it ever become cleaner over time as an EV will.
No reason not to keep your diesel until you need to change it.
There are EV estates and will be more although the trend for all vehicles has been towards SUVs for some time. For no good reason really."Is ‘that’s what the people buying them like’ not a good reason? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
Have you seen the new(ish) Audi etron GT? Thing of beauty. Happy to be a poseur in that
Hope you've got £90k stashed away!
Most electric cars are out of normal people's price range. The few people that I know that have them, have them on lease.
"Quite reasonably, you don't seem to have identified how car companies introduce any new technology. EVs happen to be a lot of new technologies being delivered at once. Everything from seatbelts to ABS to airbags are introduced on luxury vehicles first at a premium so that companies maximise their return at low volume. Over time, economies of scale bring the unit price down and these features find their way into more basic vehicles. We are extremely early in the introduction of EVs, but prices are already coming down as production scales and processes are grown. There are vehicles in the Far East at extremely low price points, but they are further along the cycle than we are with a much bigger EV market. In addition, the salary sacrifice scheme available right now allows you to get from 20% to 45% reduction in the purchase costs of a new EV depending on your salary. The majority of people have internal combustion engine cars on lease too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
There are 3 types of people who own a diesel
1. Farmers
2. Old people
3 people who think diesels are economical
I own a diesel. Its extremely low emissions mean that I pay zero road tax on it.
It's an estate car, which I need for my business.
I'm more than happy with it.
It is nowhere near zero emissions nor will it ever become cleaner over time as an EV will.
No reason not to keep your diesel until you need to change it.
There are EV estates and will be more although the trend for all vehicles has been towards SUVs for some time. For no good reason really.
Is ‘that’s what the people buying them like’ not a good reason? "That comment was an aside. The design makes them heavier, use more finite resources to build, more expensive to run, and more expensive to buy. They are being built because that's what people want. That's up to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're no fool..." Why, thank you. "The biggest polluters are not the fossil fuel companies. They don't actually burn much fuel and generate much pollution. Some leaks and off-gassing and transportation, but they don't use their own products much." So who are the biggest polluters? "The big users of fossil fuels are shifting because the alternatives are increasingly cheaper and more secure than fossil fuels." There it is again. If all the big users of fossil fuels are shifting away, the fossil fuel industry is doomed, and we're half way to solving the whole climate change problem. All we need to do now is figure out how to make 'renewables' more reliable, so that we can use them 24/7. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
Modern Diesel engines are things of wonder and beauty. I’m old enough to remember when they were dirty and noisy ‘you will never get a shag if you drive a diesel’ a saying from the time.
Development by skilled engineers changed this. Don’t forget, we were encouraged by the government of the day, Labour if I recall? to go diesel. Probably on the advice of ‘experts’, probably the same ‘experts’ who are now pushing EV’s. Possibly descendants of the ‘experts’ that warned in the early 1900s that by 1950 Londoners would be knee deep in horse shit! Remember - an ‘expert’ is a drip under pressure.
Remember also, you cannot feed eight billion people without diesel and the infernal combustion engine "EVs are also things of wonder and beauty. Inherently more efficient and quieter. More reliable with fewer components. New engineers developing brand new technologies, not just optimising the old. So the experts who predicted the horse shit caused a change that avoided the problem? The diesel policy failed because of the concentration of pollution and tampering with test results. However, as you already waxed lyrical about, engineers have solved many of these problems now. However, a better solutions now exist. The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're no fool... Why, thank you. The biggest polluters are not the fossil fuel companies. They don't actually burn much fuel and generate much pollution. Some leaks and off-gassing and transportation, but they don't use their own products much. So who are the biggest polluters? The big users of fossil fuels are shifting because the alternatives are increasingly cheaper and more secure than fossil fuels. There it is again. If all the big users of fossil fuels are shifting away, the fossil fuel industry is doomed, and we're half way to solving the whole climate change problem. All we need to do now is figure out how to make 'renewables' more reliable, so that we can use them 24/7." Have a look who the biggest users of fossil fuels are (or have been) and what the trends are. Why ask me? You will only question what I find. The data is there. You can share what you find. Fossil fuels are hugely subsidised and hold an incumbent and scale advantage with a global infrastructure designed around it for centuries, let alone the lobbying and financial power that it holds. Without a coordinated legislative process it will take much longer to make the changes that are necessary it was already delayed by decades with pure lies and obfuscation which climate denying advocates and the fossil fuel companies themselves acknowledge. Again, you are free to look all of this up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
Modern Diesel engines are things of wonder and beauty. I’m old enough to remember when they were dirty and noisy ‘you will never get a shag if you drive a diesel’ a saying from the time.
Development by skilled engineers changed this. Don’t forget, we were encouraged by the government of the day, Labour if I recall? to go diesel. Probably on the advice of ‘experts’, probably the same ‘experts’ who are now pushing EV’s. Possibly descendants of the ‘experts’ that warned in the early 1900s that by 1950 Londoners would be knee deep in horse shit! Remember - an ‘expert’ is a drip under pressure.
Remember also, you cannot feed eight billion people without diesel and the infernal combustion engine
EVs are also things of wonder and beauty.
Inherently more efficient and quieter. More reliable with fewer components.
New engineers developing brand new technologies, not just optimising the old.
So the experts who predicted the horse shit caused a change that avoided the problem?
The diesel policy failed because of the concentration of pollution and tampering with test results. However, as you already waxed lyrical about, engineers have solved many of these problems now. However, a better solutions now exist.
The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume."For once I can’t disagree with you. I just hope that the joy and freedom of affordable motoring remains. I also hope that we do not become dependent on China even more then we are right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
Modern Diesel engines are things of wonder and beauty. I’m old enough to remember when they were dirty and noisy ‘you will never get a shag if you drive a diesel’ a saying from the time.
Development by skilled engineers changed this. Don’t forget, we were encouraged by the government of the day, Labour if I recall? to go diesel. Probably on the advice of ‘experts’, probably the same ‘experts’ who are now pushing EV’s. Possibly descendants of the ‘experts’ that warned in the early 1900s that by 1950 Londoners would be knee deep in horse shit! Remember - an ‘expert’ is a drip under pressure.
Remember also, you cannot feed eight billion people without diesel and the infernal combustion engine
EVs are also things of wonder and beauty.
Inherently more efficient and quieter. More reliable with fewer components.
New engineers developing brand new technologies, not just optimising the old.
So the experts who predicted the horse shit caused a change that avoided the problem?
The diesel policy failed because of the concentration of pollution and tampering with test results. However, as you already waxed lyrical about, engineers have solved many of these problems now. However, a better solutions now exist.
The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume."I thought the Which survey earlier this year found that electric cars are less reliable, have more problems and take longer to repair. You say they are amazing but the only way to get people to buy them is to ban everything else. The reality is that but for government intervention nobody would be manufacturing or buying these cars at all. The ICE ban will inevitably have to be put back, electric cars simply aren't selling in sufficient numbers to justify anyone investing in the infrastructure, which is just fantasy anyway. I suspect that electric cars will be redundant technology in five to ten years time. They simply aren't a viable option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables because it makes economic sense anyway. It does? Great! Then we don't need to do anything more, just let market forces carry on the transition to a greener cheaper world. There's no point in anyone going to COP if we've already solved all the problems. Quite. If electric cars and heat pumps are the optimal choice for consumers, no need to ban alternatives, just let consumers choose the best products. You don't understand economies of scale incumbent dominance subsidy and unmonetised social cost then. You also don't understand the risk analysis and the financial and social cost of climate change either. Again, if you can conjure up some verifiable data to support your assertions we can have a chat. Everything that I have said is very easily available to discover. What "assertions" am I making? I have merely pointed out that people aren't buying electric cars or heat pumps in anything but miniscule numbers because they are rubbish. You need to come up with a Plan B. If you think everyone is going to make themselves poorer because "reasons" you are kidding yourself. I have an electric car and it is amazing
Good, I'll race you to the south of France and back.
You wouldn’t stand a chance, you better get used to electric cars, you will have to drive one soon
Hysterical. I'd be in Nice before you'd found a charging point in Stoke. And no, I won't. I'll happily keep my diesel going for decades. I actually have a life and go places.
There are only three types of people who buy electric cars:
1. Hair shirt eco nuts
2. Rich people who can run a petrol or diesel as well
3. Corporate poseurs who now want a Tesla instead of their usual BMW.
Modern Diesel engines are things of wonder and beauty. I’m old enough to remember when they were dirty and noisy ‘you will never get a shag if you drive a diesel’ a saying from the time.
Development by skilled engineers changed this. Don’t forget, we were encouraged by the government of the day, Labour if I recall? to go diesel. Probably on the advice of ‘experts’, probably the same ‘experts’ who are now pushing EV’s. Possibly descendants of the ‘experts’ that warned in the early 1900s that by 1950 Londoners would be knee deep in horse shit! Remember - an ‘expert’ is a drip under pressure.
Remember also, you cannot feed eight billion people without diesel and the infernal combustion engine
EVs are also things of wonder and beauty.
Inherently more efficient and quieter. More reliable with fewer components.
New engineers developing brand new technologies, not just optimising the old.
So the experts who predicted the horse shit caused a change that avoided the problem?
The diesel policy failed because of the concentration of pollution and tampering with test results. However, as you already waxed lyrical about, engineers have solved many of these problems now. However, a better solutions now exist.
The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume.
I thought the Which survey earlier this year found that electric cars are less reliable, have more problems and take longer to repair.
You say they are amazing but the only way to get people to buy them is to ban everything else. The reality is that but for government intervention nobody would be manufacturing or buying these cars at all.
The ICE ban will inevitably have to be put back, electric cars simply aren't selling in sufficient numbers to justify anyone investing in the infrastructure, which is just fantasy anyway.
I suspect that electric cars will be redundant technology in five to ten years time. They simply aren't a viable option."You still seem to be determined to demand that an entirely new product that most manufacturers have never built before will be as reliable as something that has been optimised for a century. Why would you think that? The reliability is pretty amazing for something so new and longer repair times are hardly surprising considering the lack of spares and experience of servicing staff. Reliability issues are much higher when any new model of a petrol or diesel car is released. Releasing EVs with completely new to most car manufacturers is an order of magnitude higher. They are pretty amazing pieces of kit and people tend to note return to internal combustion engines once they have experienced them. You seem to have misunderstood the reason for banning IC engines cars. It's to minimise the extremely negative effects of climate change because we've spent so long pretending that there's no problem. The legislation is to force the industry to change because left to its own devices it would continue doing the same thing because that makes them the most profit. You still haven't identified any data to validate your belief that climate change does not exist so we will have to accept the thousands of scientists and millions of data points that indicates that it does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The price of electricity has made EVs less competitive than a year ago. Should volumes of sales vastly increase, then that would inevitably lead to a use tax, again another cost. The years of work on cleaner combustion fuels and more efficient engines are being sacrificed. The people that I deal with in the automotive sector do not see EV as the way forward. I cannot have an EV car. I have no where to charge it at home. My business premises are leased, and the landlord is not interested in putting a charging point in. In business, time is money, and I need the convenience of being able to go there and back, without being sat at a charging point for two hours. EVs never obtain the stated selling range. Planning would be a nightmare. Sure. EVs do have merit in certain circumstances. That's where education is key. I sit and watch commuters go the few miles from home to the station, the men going to the golf club, the incessant school run with one adult and one child in the car. And guess what? The majority drive huge petrol SUVs. These are the people that are causing the damage. These are the ones that could easily use a small electric car to make that sort of journey. We have made the car a status symbol. The bigger the car, the more successful you must be. That is where change should start. " The car industry was forced, kicking and screaming to reduce emissions. If they had moved faster and if other industries had moved faster we wouldn't have to force change now. The price of renewable energy is tied to fossil fuels. Guess what would happen if we had less reliance on fossil fuels and decoupled pricing? It's a linked system towards decarbonisation. That is the point. "Cleaner" combustion engines are still filthy and produce huge levels of CO2 and cannot avoid that where as a decarbonise grid charging EVs can. You are finding problems in a nascent industry that is moving quickly to compare to a mature industry which is actively causing damage to the climate and generating huge costs in damaging extreme weather events, let alone the disease, famine and competition for livable space that will follow. I don't disagree about SUVs being stupid, but another poster, apparently does, but even reversing that will leave a damaging industry not interested in changing unless forced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have a look who the biggest users of fossil fuels are (or have been) and what the trends are. Why ask me?" Because you're the one that said "The world, including the biggest polluters, are shifting to renewables ...", and I wanted to know who you think the biggest polluters are. "it was already delayed by decades with pure lies and obfuscation which climate denying advocates and the fossil fuel companies themselves acknowledge. Again, you are free to look all of this up." It's hard to look up that sort of thing without some clues. Can you give me an example of something that held up change, and is now acknowledged by both sides to be a lie? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume." The EV is superior in some cases, but not all. There still isn't an electric lorry available, because the companies that have tried to build one can't get the required range. It's the same with delivery vans. You'll see electric vans in big cities, where the routes are short, but they can't yet be made to work in more rural areas. The EV really ought to be superior, since batteries and electric motors have been in development for longer than the internal combustion engine has existed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume. The EV is superior in some cases, but not all. There still isn't an electric lorry available, because the companies that have tried to build one can't get the required range. It's the same with delivery vans. You'll see electric vans in big cities, where the routes are short, but they can't yet be made to work in more rural areas. The EV really ought to be superior, since batteries and electric motors have been in development for longer than the internal combustion engine has existed." Electric trucks are available and have been for some years now. Mostly rigid smaller trucks until recently but articulated trucks are now being delivered. DFDS have recently started taking an order of 110 trucks. Major supermarkets are trialling hydrogen fuel cell trucks which is probably the way a lot of heavy trucks are going whilst there are both range and production issues with batteries. The chronic lack of infrastructure is also a major limiting factor for trucks. The market will fill that gap once heavy truck operators commit to fuel type. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume. The EV is superior in some cases, but not all. There still isn't an electric lorry available, because the companies that have tried to build one can't get the required range. It's the same with delivery vans. You'll see electric vans in big cities, where the routes are short, but they can't yet be made to work in more rural areas. The EV really ought to be superior, since batteries and electric motors have been in development for longer than the internal combustion engine has existed. Electric trucks are available and have been for some years now. Mostly rigid smaller trucks until recently but articulated trucks are now being delivered. DFDS have recently started taking an order of 110 trucks. Major supermarkets are trialling hydrogen fuel cell trucks which is probably the way a lot of heavy trucks are going whilst there are both range and production issues with batteries. The chronic lack of infrastructure is also a major limiting factor for trucks. The market will fill that gap once heavy truck operators commit to fuel type. " Not forgetting the milk float of course, which has been with us for decades. Not sure it will get me to the south of France and back though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"DFDS have recently started taking an order of 110 trucks." That's good news. It'll be interesting to see how the experiment goes for them. They've ordered the Volvo FM, which claims a range of 300km. I would have thought that would be too restrictive, but they obviously disagree. Let's hope it works. "Major supermarkets are trialling hydrogen fuel cell trucks which is probably the way a lot of heavy trucks are going whilst there are both range and production issues with batteries." Hydrogen does seem to offer more promise. The biggest problem with commercial EVs is the time it takes to charge them and get them back out on the road. Hydrogen could solve that problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"DFDS have recently started taking an order of 110 trucks. That's good news. It'll be interesting to see how the experiment goes for them. They've ordered the Volvo FM, which claims a range of 300km. I would have thought that would be too restrictive, but they obviously disagree. Let's hope it works. Major supermarkets are trialling hydrogen fuel cell trucks which is probably the way a lot of heavy trucks are going whilst there are both range and production issues with batteries. Hydrogen does seem to offer more promise. The biggest problem with commercial EVs is the time it takes to charge them and get them back out on the road. Hydrogen could solve that problem." Yes the range is too restrictive for the long haul general work which is why Hydrogen is the preferred option for now. Certain pure hydrogen trucks without fuel cells are also being experimented with. Rapid charging to a limited percentage is possible as with cars. The 300km is fine for specific jobs such as some supermarket closed loop work and regular shunting between pre defined destinations. This is also very easy if charging is available at both points. I’m guessing DFDS are using their trucks on the Volvo bridge between Gothenburg and Ghent as that is all regular pre- determined routing between Volvo factories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume. The EV is superior in some cases, but not all. There still isn't an electric lorry available, because the companies that have tried to build one can't get the required range. It's the same with delivery vans. You'll see electric vans in big cities, where the routes are short, but they can't yet be made to work in more rural areas. The EV really ought to be superior, since batteries and electric motors have been in development for longer than the internal combustion engine has existed." Just because you have a hammer, it doesn't make everything a nail
At the moment, battery mass makes HGVs somewhat impractical for long haul. Tesla seems determined though.
They may be practical for shorter routes.
These sorts of vehicles and vans and buses could be depot charged overnight, so fact charging not really a handicap.
Hydrogen fuel cells are the more likely fuel source for longer ranges, especially as most of the drive will be common with pure battery vehicles. Fuelling and range as fast as diesel. The challenge will be infrastructure, but it is a good way to store excess renewable energy. Again, depot charging may be sensible. Also practical for off highway vehicles and trains.
Direct combustion of Hydrogen also very straightforward as a direct substitute for diesel, with some modifications. Also can be burned directly in jet turbines.
Also a possibility for shipping, but ammonia may be a better alternative (but a bit smelly!). Also a return to sails as a secondary power source.
The drawback of Hydrogen is that it needs a larger volume to provide the same energy as a hydrocarbon, but not such an issue with larger vehicles.
Entire new industries. Significant investment in jobs and factories.
This used to be considered a good thing, but for some reason there are people who don't want any of this to happen... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These sorts of vehicles and vans and buses could be depot charged overnight, so fact charging not really a handicap." That would be fine for companies like Royal Mail local delivery, which work 9-5. Sadly electric vans aren't yet up to the job of driving for a whole day outside of major towns, so it's not practical at the moment. It's not a solution to the rest of Royal Mail's business though. There's a lot of long-haul routes in parcel delivery, and battery vehicles have nothing to offer there in the foreseeable future. "Direct combustion of Hydrogen also very straightforward as a direct substitute for diesel, with some modifications. Also can be burned directly in jet turbines." I don't understand why trains aren't being converted to direct hydrogen usage. It would be much cheaper and simpler than putting up all the cables for electrification, and there's plenty of space for storage. I wonder who's stopping that from happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume. The EV is superior in some cases, but not all. There still isn't an electric lorry available, because the companies that have tried to build one can't get the required range. It's the same with delivery vans. You'll see electric vans in big cities, where the routes are short, but they can't yet be made to work in more rural areas. The EV really ought to be superior, since batteries and electric motors have been in development for longer than the internal combustion engine has existed. Just because you have a hammer, it doesn't make everything a nail
At the moment, battery mass makes HGVs somewhat impractical for long haul. Tesla seems determined though.
They may be practical for shorter routes.
These sorts of vehicles and vans and buses could be depot charged overnight, so fact charging not really a handicap.
Hydrogen fuel cells are the more likely fuel source for longer ranges, especially as most of the drive will be common with pure battery vehicles. Fuelling and range as fast as diesel. The challenge will be infrastructure, but it is a good way to store excess renewable energy. Again, depot charging may be sensible. Also practical for off highway vehicles and trains.
Direct combustion of Hydrogen also very straightforward as a direct substitute for diesel, with some modifications. Also can be burned directly in jet turbines.
Also a possibility for shipping, but ammonia may be a better alternative (but a bit smelly!). Also a return to sails as a secondary power source.
The drawback of Hydrogen is that it needs a larger volume to provide the same energy as a hydrocarbon, but not such an issue with larger vehicles.
Entire new industries. Significant investment in jobs and factories.
This used to be considered a good thing, but for some reason there are people who don't want any of this to happen..."Who do you think is stopping it happening? Presumably it isn't happening because the private sector doesn't think it's a good investment and the public sector doesn't have any money. And neither public nor private sectors have a clue what's going to happen over the next five years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These sorts of vehicles and vans and buses could be depot charged overnight, so fact charging not really a handicap. That would be fine for companies like Royal Mail local delivery, which work 9-5. Sadly electric vans aren't yet up to the job of driving for a whole day outside of major towns, so it's not practical at the moment. It's not a solution to the rest of Royal Mail's business though. There's a lot of long-haul routes in parcel delivery, and battery vehicles have nothing to offer there in the foreseeable future. Direct combustion of Hydrogen also very straightforward as a direct substitute for diesel, with some modifications. Also can be burned directly in jet turbines. I don't understand why trains aren't being converted to direct hydrogen usage. It would be much cheaper and simpler than putting up all the cables for electrification, and there's plenty of space for storage. I wonder who's stopping that from happening." The Railway Safety Board have only literally just got going looking at the operation of hydrogen trains. There has been a prototype running for a year now. It was displayed at COP26, and this led to a provisional contract for 10 trains to be built by Alsthom in the UK. Germany is well in advance of us on hydrogen trains. I expect us to be a few years behind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"DFDS have recently started taking an order of 110 trucks. That's good news. It'll be interesting to see how the experiment goes for them. They've ordered the Volvo FM, which claims a range of 300km. I would have thought that would be too restrictive, but they obviously disagree. Let's hope it works. Major supermarkets are trialling hydrogen fuel cell trucks which is probably the way a lot of heavy trucks are going whilst there are both range and production issues with batteries. Hydrogen does seem to offer more promise. The biggest problem with commercial EVs is the time it takes to charge them and get them back out on the road. Hydrogen could solve that problem." There is a solution to the charge time that was being considered, standardised batteries that get swapped rather than charged. Drive on to a pad, the car battery is automatically disconnected and new fully charged battery replaced. They have a similar model for electric mopeds. Like many things in tech, trying to get an industry standard may take longer than fixing the actual issue | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These sorts of vehicles and vans and buses could be depot charged overnight, so fact charging not really a handicap. That would be fine for companies like Royal Mail local delivery, which work 9-5. Sadly electric vans aren't yet up to the job of driving for a whole day outside of major towns, so it's not practical at the moment. It's not a solution to the rest of Royal Mail's business though. There's a lot of long-haul routes in parcel delivery, and battery vehicles have nothing to offer there in the foreseeable future. Direct combustion of Hydrogen also very straightforward as a direct substitute for diesel, with some modifications. Also can be burned directly in jet turbines. I don't understand why trains aren't being converted to direct hydrogen usage. It would be much cheaper and simpler than putting up all the cables for electrification, and there's plenty of space for storage. I wonder who's stopping that from happening." Because of a lack of production of Hydrogen. The chaos of government has resulted in no firm structure or plan in regards to renewables and alternatives. They keep moving the goalposts and just announcing positive sound bites . Underlying all this noise is a lack of a coherent strategy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These sorts of vehicles and vans and buses could be depot charged overnight, so fact charging not really a handicap. That would be fine for companies like Royal Mail local delivery, which work 9-5. Sadly electric vans aren't yet up to the job of driving for a whole day outside of major towns, so it's not practical at the moment. It's not a solution to the rest of Royal Mail's business though. There's a lot of long-haul routes in parcel delivery, and battery vehicles have nothing to offer there in the foreseeable future. Direct combustion of Hydrogen also very straightforward as a direct substitute for diesel, with some modifications. Also can be burned directly in jet turbines. I don't understand why trains aren't being converted to direct hydrogen usage. It would be much cheaper and simpler than putting up all the cables for electrification, and there's plenty of space for storage. I wonder who's stopping that from happening." Agreed. Hence Hydrogen for longer distance road routes. Also agreed with trains. Spending on the rail electrification and maintenance doesn't seem sensible if hydrogen could fill the role with some additional fuelling infrastructure as per diesel trains. A lot of that is lack of certainty around Government policy and the seed investment or backstop finance guarantees that will be needed to scale up quickly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"DFDS have recently started taking an order of 110 trucks. That's good news. It'll be interesting to see how the experiment goes for them. They've ordered the Volvo FM, which claims a range of 300km. I would have thought that would be too restrictive, but they obviously disagree. Let's hope it works. Major supermarkets are trialling hydrogen fuel cell trucks which is probably the way a lot of heavy trucks are going whilst there are both range and production issues with batteries. Hydrogen does seem to offer more promise. The biggest problem with commercial EVs is the time it takes to charge them and get them back out on the road. Hydrogen could solve that problem. There is a solution to the charge time that was being considered, standardised batteries that get swapped rather than charged. Drive on to a pad, the car battery is automatically disconnected and new fully charged battery replaced. They have a similar model for electric mopeds. Like many things in tech, trying to get an industry standard may take longer than fixing the actual issue " This is very inefficient from a resource perspective. You require many more batteries and therefore the resource to build them. You also need all of the car companies to agree to a standard battery and associated software control. Those are both major performance and marketing differentiators, so hard to see happening. Mopeds/scooters more feasible, but I think more so in countries with less well developed grid infrastructure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The evolution of internal combustion engines has taken over a century but in a fraction of that time the EV is already a superior product. Price will come down with volume. The EV is superior in some cases, but not all. There still isn't an electric lorry available, because the companies that have tried to build one can't get the required range. It's the same with delivery vans. You'll see electric vans in big cities, where the routes are short, but they can't yet be made to work in more rural areas. The EV really ought to be superior, since batteries and electric motors have been in development for longer than the internal combustion engine has existed. Just because you have a hammer, it doesn't make everything a nail
At the moment, battery mass makes HGVs somewhat impractical for long haul. Tesla seems determined though.
They may be practical for shorter routes.
These sorts of vehicles and vans and buses could be depot charged overnight, so fact charging not really a handicap.
Hydrogen fuel cells are the more likely fuel source for longer ranges, especially as most of the drive will be common with pure battery vehicles. Fuelling and range as fast as diesel. The challenge will be infrastructure, but it is a good way to store excess renewable energy. Again, depot charging may be sensible. Also practical for off highway vehicles and trains.
Direct combustion of Hydrogen also very straightforward as a direct substitute for diesel, with some modifications. Also can be burned directly in jet turbines.
Also a possibility for shipping, but ammonia may be a better alternative (but a bit smelly!). Also a return to sails as a secondary power source.
The drawback of Hydrogen is that it needs a larger volume to provide the same energy as a hydrocarbon, but not such an issue with larger vehicles.
Entire new industries. Significant investment in jobs and factories.
This used to be considered a good thing, but for some reason there are people who don't want any of this to happen...
Who do you think is stopping it happening?
Presumably it isn't happening because the private sector doesn't think it's a good investment and the public sector doesn't have any money.
And neither public nor private sectors have a clue what's going to happen over the next five years. "Why would you presume that? There is a lot of investment, but as a few people have stated it requires Government policy clarity and some financial commitment, which does not necessarily have to be cash upfront. This feeds into your second point which is correct, but again comes from a Government that provides sound-bites and no detail because it is preoccupied with internal problems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
