# Is it the death knell for the combustion engine?



## izwozral

"New *petrol* and *diesel* cars *banned* from *2035*. A *ban* on selling new *petrol* and *diesel* cars will be brought forward by five years to improve air quality, the prime minister will announce today. Boris Johnson will say that the sale of new combustion engine cars and vans will end in *2035* rather than 2040."

Don't panic, don't panic, no mention of MH's or vans or lorries. 

That's alright then?


----------



## tidewatcher

I announced I would win the lottery this year but it’s a bit harder to achieve than talk about. Really we are talking about the ending of private car use for long distance, the idea of having a contract, as you do for a mobile phone, for electric town and short distance use and then longer distance by..... errr.... something else. We are going to need a lot of lithium or maybe the emergence of the fuel cell as a viable option. Let the politicians get the glory while the engineers do the work.


----------



## Moped

izwozral said:


> "New *petrol* and *diesel* cars *banned* from *2035*. A *ban* on selling new *petrol* and *diesel* cars will be brought forward by five years to improve air quality, the prime minister will announce today. Boris Johnson will say that the sale of new combustion engine cars and vans will end in *2035* rather than 2040."
> 
> Don't panic, don't panic, no mention of MH's or vans or lorries.
> 
> That's alright then?



Vans are mentioned. Are coach built motorhomes built on a van chassis? And then there are the panel van conversions. So it seems nearly all new motorhomes from 2035 will be powered by something but not combustion engines.


----------



## Fisherman

I know what’s being stated is 2035 but the reason this was brought forward was the ultimate target is 2050 when it’s planned that no internal combustion cars and vans will be on the road. It was felt that 2040 would not have allowed enough time to eradicate internal combustion engines by 2050.
Let’s wait for the announcement and then deduce exactly what vehicles will be banned.


----------



## Fisherman

The last date to buy a new petrol, diesel or hybrid car in the UK will be brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Boris Johnson will outline the policy later at an event to launch a United Nations climate summit in November.
He will say the summit is a chance to "step up" protecting the planet.
The summit, known as COP26, is being hosted in Glasgow. It is an annual UN-led gathering set up to assess progress on tackling climate change.
The government's plans come as COP26's former president Claire O’Neill, who was sacked on Friday, wrote a bitter letter accusing Mr Johnson of failing to support her work.
At a launch event in London the prime minister will say the ban could come even earlier than 2035 for new petrol and diesel cars, if possible. 
Hybrid vehicles are also now being included in the proposals, which were originally announced in July 2017. 
People will only be able to buy electric or hydrogen *cars and vans,* once the ban comes into effect.
The change in plans, which will be subject to a consultation, is being planned because experts warned the previous target date of 2040 would still leave old conventional cars on the roads after the clean-up date of 2050.


----------



## Dezi

izwozral said:


> "New *petrol* and *diesel* cars *banned* from *2035*. A *ban* on selling new *petrol* and *diesel* cars will be brought forward by five years to improve air quality, the prime minister will announce today. Boris Johnson will say that the sale of new combustion engine cars and vans will end in *2035* rather than 2040."
> 
> Don't panic, don't panic, no mention of MH's or vans or lorries.
> 
> That's alright then?



Hopefully its the end. 

Its long overdue that a cleaner means of reliable, long distance, transport was available for all.

Battery capacity and longevity has been the problem but it seems that Tesla and others are finally getting to grips with that problem 
and also looking at other forms of propulsion.

Dezi


----------



## harrow

Its like people who tow caravans, how will they do that with electric cars ?


----------



## Fisherman

bye the way it’s 2032 for Scotland.


----------



## trevskoda

Just when i was going to sell my scalectrix cars. I did warn you lot about this,france & others will be doing it in 2025 ,who will want you old van by then.


----------



## trevskoda

harrow said:


> Its like people who tow caravans, how will they do that with electric cars ?


Much more torque in electric,but distance will be reduced.


----------



## 2cv

Fisherman said:


> bye the way it’s 2032 for Scotland.



It will be just like the booze, boom time for Carlisle car sales.


----------



## Asterix

0 to 60 in under 5 seconds in a motorhome,I can't wait


----------



## QFour

There are not enough electric points at the moment and how do they propose that people living in terraced houses charge their cars. Car parks are going to have to have electric charging points for each bay so who is going to pay for all this. I have already seen a cable across a pavement to an electric car. Read the other day that someone takes his car to the Council recharging point round the corner rather than use his own electric to charge up because the Council one is free.


----------



## GreggBear

So when petrol & diesel are banned, will there be electric vehicles available for £500? 
This was the amount I had available when I bought my present run about. Trouble with new technology is gonna be the lack of cheap second hand motors. Not a problem if you buy a new one every year, but I have never had a new vehicle in my life. Most I ever paid for one was 2.5k
How will people like me be able to embrace this new "wonder" technology? As usual everybody is carried away with the "lets go green" thing & no thought for the bottom feeders like me.....


----------



## Fisherman

2cv said:


> It will be just like the booze, boom time for Carlisle car sales.



Totally agree, let’s think of away of destroying Scottish car dealers, oh I know


----------



## Fisherman

We have to change, and we have to start to think differently.
I am fully onboard here, but what about heating our homes.
There is as much CO2 produced from heating our homes as driving or cars and vans. Yet this seems to be on the back burner. But if we all start to use electricity to heat our homes instead of gas, where will all the power come from. These are the challenges that lie in front of us. But if we care about our children and grand children things have to change.


----------



## Martin P

Well my current runabout is 22 years old. So if i get a 34 petrol car that will take me to 2056 by which time I will be dead so no worries


----------



## Martin P

Our house has electric heating and its a financial disaster. Too expensive to run so we keep a fire burning 24/7 for 8 months of the year


----------



## GreggBear

I agree with a previous point already made, we are being told we have to give up our transport & clean up our act while large companies continue to pollute the world at a much higher rate than us commoners ever did. Why aren't they being held to book? Probably doesn't matter if they pay the right people enough money, eh?......


----------



## mariesnowgoose

It's a massive logistical and cultural worldwide problem.

BUT - the complacent world leviathan is finally starting to be prodded one way or another, let's see how fast it wakes up (or not).

If the Chinese can build a 1,000 bed hospital in 2 weeks, there has to be some hope for the future?
There will be problems right across the board regardless, too much on our planet has been damaged/lost already.

Me, I will just be quite happy to be compos mentis and walking around in 10 years time, diesel moho or no diesel moho.

Just pleased our latest van didn't cost us tens of thousands, so am perfectly content to run it into the ground, then wait see what happens after that - if I'm still alive, that is


----------



## Martin P

The real problem stems from the fact that our insignificant little planet on the edge of one of many solar systems is vastly overpopulated . We can all tread as lightly as you like but it aint going to make one jot of difference


----------



## Fisherman

Martin P said:


> The real problem stems from the fact that our insignificant little planet on the edge of one of many solar systems is vastly overpopulated . We can all tread as lightly as you like but it aint going to make one jot of difference



Whilst I agree that we are over populated and that's set to get worse, there is much we can and must do about how we live. It's simply not an option to say that we can't make any difference, of course we can, and of course we must. Doing nothing, burying our heads in the sand and hoping it will sort itself out, is not an option.


----------



## Martin P

Of course. We need a futile gesture at this stage of human evolution


----------



## trevskoda

QFour said:


> There are not enough electric points at the moment and how do they propose that people living in terraced houses charge their cars. Car parks are going to have to have electric charging points for each bay so who is going to pay for all this. I have already seen a cable across a pavement to an electric car. Read the other day that someone takes his car to the Council recharging point round the corner rather than use his own electric to charge up because the Council one is free.


Street lamp post will be cabled for charging.


----------



## Martin P

One of my clients has a Tesla.
They cant get a cable to it at home because it would have to cross a neighbours who wont allow it.
She had to go to Warrington from Bicester last week. She said she would have to stop to charge twice on the way. 40 mins per stop. 
Electric cars

No thanks


----------



## harrow

QFour said:


> There are not enough electric points at the moment and how do they propose that people living in terraced houses charge their cars. Car parks are going to have to have electric charging points for each bay so who is going to pay for all this. I have already seen a cable across a pavement to an electric car. Read the other day that someone takes his car to the Council recharging point round the corner rather than use his own electric to charge up because the Council one is free.


I understand there are about 8 different charging points and you have to have a different account to use each one. Its not going to be easy.


----------



## mariesnowgoose

There is a well known phrase, it goes 'shutting the stable door... '


----------



## GreggBear

Fisherman said:


> Whilst I agree that we are over populated and that's set to get worse, there is much we can and must do about how we live. It's simply not an option to say that we can't make any difference, of course we can, and of course we must. Doing nothing, burying our heads in the sand and hoping it will sort itself out, is not an option.


Agreed something needs to change, but commonsense should prevail. Hit the big polluters first & hard. If they make billions in profit, that should be used to change things, not taking the last penny from you & I.
Our local primary school is awash with cars twice a day, as are every school. Many of them can be seen through the day parked within walking distance of the school.  Many primary schools have been closed forcing more parents to travel further to a school. This is labelled "progress". Progress is not really progress when it causes environmental damage. Too much short term gain for those at the top, then blame us all when it goes tits up!
We will not kill the planet,  we will just end up extinct like the dinosaurs before us, nature will see to that. All we're doing is speeding the process up.....


----------



## Fisherman

Martin P said:


> Electric cars
> 
> No thanks



Dead planet, no thanks.

These are issues that are in their infancy and will improve.
You talk as if electric cars won’t improve, that battery technology won’t improve, that infrastructure won’t improve, if you were around in 1886 no doubt you would have been telling us where will all the roads come from, where all the filling stations come from, and how will we ever make enough of them for everyone. Let’s stick to using steam trains and horses to get from A to B.


----------



## Moped

Check the carbon footprint for motorhome and airline travel.

For a motorhome to Alicante and back from Birmingham = just about 0.4 tonne total for the 1200 mile round trip and several months in Spain.

For airplane travel for 2 people for the same return trip = 1 tonne total and 1 or 2 weeks in Spain.

Maybe this point should be made to the government by the various motorhome interest groups?


----------



## Fisherman

Moped said:


> Check the carbon footprint for motorhome and airline travel.
> 
> For a motorhome to Alicante and back from Birmingham = just about 0.4 tonne total for the 1200 mile round trip and several months in Spain.
> 
> For airplane travel for 2 people for the same return trip = 1 tonne total and 1 or 2 weeks in Spain.
> 
> Maybe this point should be made to the government by the various motorhome interest groups?



Moped, all forms of transport world wide make up just 14% of CO2 emissions.
The last thing we want to do is ask for special treatment for motorhomes whilst everyone else has to change.
I have no doubt that flying will become much more expensive in years to come.
Thats how I reckon they will attempt to limit flying.
The days of cheap flights, weekends in New York will be a thing of the past.


----------



## Robmac

As a boat owner, I have been looking at alternative means of propulsion.

Electric outboards are coming on in leaps and bounds with the likes of Torqueedo making more and more efficient motors. The difference between a boat and a motorhome (apart from the obvious!) is that if a boat runs out of charge, you can simply drop the anchor and let the solar panels do their work and you are in nobody's way even if you are there for a couple of days. They can also use wind generators or even pedals as a source of power.

Eventually I can see me going for a small sailing boat with an electric outboard and use a combination of the two.

In the interim, I can see taxation as a big threat to conventional motorhomes and private vehicles in general with a big move to public transport being further 'encouraged'.

Sadly, that will not help us.


----------



## sparrks

QFour said:


> There are not enough electric points at the moment and how do they propose that people living in terraced houses charge their cars. Car parks are going to have to have electric charging points for each bay so who is going to pay for all this. I have already seen a cable across a pavement to an electric car. Read the other day that someone takes his car to the Council recharging point round the corner rather than use his own electric to charge up because the Council one is free.


The idea is to ban or eradicate private car ownership


----------



## Martin P

Lol. Quite funny.
If I had been around in1886 I would have been following Karl Benz with great interest trying to make my own petrol engined vehicle. Just as I am keenly trying to get to grips with electronics now.
However
Even if GB goes totally electric and we all sit around shivering in our houses built from highly imflammable celotex eating nothing but baked beans , I suspect the total emmision reduction as a percentage of the total worlwide would be virtually insignificant
Also if fracking had taken off in this country its a pretty fair bet the govt would not be adopting an anti gas stance
 As has been said if everyone could afford to go out and buy a nice shiny new electric car that would be marvellous but as with power tools once the batteries are dead ( Lithium last 2 to 3 years on the makita tools I use) they wouldnt be worth a carrot
Yes I agree that it would be good if everyone treads a little lightly it wont do any harm but I aint going to lose any sleep over it.


----------



## sparrks

Fisherman said:


> We have to change, and we have to start to think differently.
> I am fully onboard here, but what about heating our homes.
> There is as much CO2 produced from heating our homes as driving or cars and vans. Yet this seems to be on the back burner. But if we all start to use electricity to heat our homes instead of gas, where will all the power come from. These are the challenges that lie in front of us. But if we care about our children and grand children things have to change.


Hydrogen will be used to heat homes etc and I believe it could also replace fossil fuels in the ICE and/or hydrogen fuel cells.

A report recently concluded that the fashion industry creates more pollution than aviation and shipping combined.


----------



## TeamRienza

My concern (for future generation) has more to do with the security of the Uk than this headlong rush towards total dependence on electricity. Add to the mix the announcement that new build houses cannot connect to gas for heating (a reputedly clean fuel) leaving electricity as the only economically viable alternative I wonder how we square the circle.

The bigger picture to me is that this country is hell bent on selling or giving away all of its critical infrastructure, wether that be transport, power generation, steel production etc. Not long now till we are a cashless society. Add all of this to the increasing rise in hacking and 3rd party interference and I believe the country will be very exposed. I don’t say this from the ‘empire and greatness’ point of view but simply as a major world economy overly dependent on other countries for its functionality.

By all means develop electrical propulsion although I remain sceptical of the cost of production from raw material to running and scrapping both ecologically and financially. It is imperative that Hydrogen be developed as an alternative although I assume this will use a lot of electricity to produce. I prefer to keep an open mind on the future of fossil fuels, particularly petrol and diesel. I believe there is still a way to go in the evolution of engines.

I believe there is too much jumping on the band wagon and political posturing over this issue.

Davy


----------



## Fisherman

Sorry Davy but gas is not a clean fuel, gas heating in the UK emits around the same CO2 as all forms  of transport put together.
Hydrogen fuel cells require batteries also.
The big advantage is you don't need as large an infra structure regarding charging points.
As for jumping on a bandwagon, we should have jumped on it decades ago.
The problem is we have waited too long.


----------



## 2cv

It’s all relatively short term anyway. We’re never going to save the planet in the long term. As the sun gets hotter eventually all the water will evaporate meaning that the Earth will be uninhabitable well before it is destroyed in a galactic collision. All this will take a billion years.


----------



## yorkslass

Its all very well banning diesel, petrol, gas in favour of electric, but even with wind and solar, i can't see that there will be enough power to go round. Why not insist that new homes must have ,at the very least, solar panels, ....because the homebuilders dont want to because that would affect their profitability. Everybody has an agenda, and those with most money/power always win.


----------



## Fisherman

2cv said:


> It’s all relatively short term anyway. We’re never going to save the planet in the long term. As the sun gets hotter eventually all the water will evaporate meaning that the Earth will be uninhabitable well before it is destroyed in a galactic collision. All this will take a billion years.


 
Perhaps by then we will be able to park in Musselburgh


----------



## jagmanx

Do not fret !
Some may remember Petrol rationing (1973 ish)

Ahead we will have LECCY Rationing
Wind Rationing (although that might suit me !) and
Sun Rationing

My big wish is for Politician Rationing !!!


----------



## mark61

Sure homebuilders will fit solar as soon as there is a market, and there must be the market now, or very soon. They'll just have to print some new brochures. 
Solar cost pennies to include on new builds, either solar thermal or photovoltaic. 
I've had thermal panels on my roof for about 16 years, gone from thinking there are brilliant to now trying to work out if the emissions they have saved is now going to be used by the scaffolding lorry thats going to have to come round so they can be maintained.


----------



## Martin P

Not to forget the potential impact of self driving cars. 
They could potentially do away with a lot of car ownership.
You could get of a train and into a car you had summoned online. After it had taken you where you wished it would register as unused and whisk off to its next job. Parking in cities( or in fact anywhere) would no longer be neccessary.
A bit like a car version of a Boris bike but would come to you.
(Good news for the pub industry!)
Lots of testing going on on a runway near me.
Just pay as you use
Not so good for taxi drivers.
Electric power for long distances, no problem. Just swap cars
It will be second car ownership that dwindles first I think.
Also having a car just to drive to and back from your local rail station every day and paying to park will be a thing of the past. 
I dont think electric cars on their own are going to be a revolution , self driving cars. That is the real advance


----------



## tailgate

Change only impacts on the poorer end .
Easy to announce changes when you've got plenty of money  to buy the new vehicles.
People talk now of 30k for a vehicle as if it's nothing.
Change has got to happen but make it affordable for all not just the wealthy.


----------



## Martin P

tailgate said:


> Change only impacts on the poorer end .
> Easy to announce changes when you've got plenty of money  to buy the new vehicles.
> People talk now of 30k for a vehicle as if it's nothing.
> Change has got to happen but make it affordable for all not just the wealthy.



That would be the beauty of calling up a self driving car. Only pay for it when you use it. Much cheaper than a taxi as no wage to pay.
(Sorry taxi drivers but you got a few years yet)
 Once you have made your journey it goes to next job


----------



## Nabsim

jagmanx said:


> Do not fret !
> Some may remember Petrol rationing (1973 ish)
> 
> Ahead we will have LECCY Rationing
> Wind Rationing (although that might suit me !) and
> Sun Rationing
> 
> My big wish is for Politician Rationing !!!


I remember power rationing and the three day working week, wasn’t that 70’s as well?
Whereas we all managed back then in today’s connected world it would probable result in rioting/civil war.
We need change but we need it across the board, every house should have solar panels and living roof/walls. We should be pushing hydrogen powered motors as well


----------



## Nabsim

Martin P said:


> That would be the beauty of calling up a self driving car. Only pay for it when you use it. Much cheaper than a taxi as no wage to pay.
> (Sorry taxi drivers but you got a few years yet)
> Once you have made your journey it goes to next job


These things only tend to work where there is high population density. In lots of rural areas you struggle to get broadband still.
City’s should be pedestrianised anyway


----------



## Asterix

Nabsim said:


> We should be pushing hydrogen powered motors as well



I'd rather have a self propelled one


----------



## colinm

tailgate said:


> Change only impacts on the poorer end .
> Easy to announce changes when you've got plenty of money  to buy the new vehicles.
> People talk now of 30k for a vehicle as if it's nothing.
> Change has got to happen but make it affordable for all not just the wealthy.



There is no compulsion for anyone to go out and buy a new car.


----------



## Dezi

Well things seem to have rapidly moved on since I put in my two pence this morning, including a lot of
negative thinking.
We have just got back from the market in Salisbury where we used the Britford park & ride service.  
51.051754, -1.783730
A couple of weeks ago Salisbury invested in several all electric busses to run on the park & ride system and we rode on one this morning,
its the way forward folk.  

Dezi 









						Electric buses arrive for Salisbury Park & Ride
					

Salisbury Reds now has three electric vehicles to add to their fleet.




					www.spirefm.co.uk


----------



## izwozral

All this worry and panic when there really is a very simple solution.
Push your cars to work, MH's to your holiday spots, lorries to depots and buses to bus stops. Simples! No petrol or diesel necessary.

Ok, I may not thought this one through properly?


----------



## Robmac

We will all have cars with no floors like Fred Flintstone soon.

Now that's progress!


----------



## Pauljenny

In 2035 I'll be 89.
You youngsters should be investing in the original form of horsepower..
The 4 legged variety, producers of  fine manure.
Me ..?  
An  electric Hearse will be more to my requirements


----------



## harrow

Robmac said:


> We will all have cars with no floors like Fred Flintstone soon.
> 
> Now that's progress!



I have had a few rusty cars like that


----------



## GreggBear

colinmd said:


> There is no compulsion for anyone to go out and buy a new car.


True, but for a long time after the new tech is made mandatory, there won't be any cheap 2nd hand ones available. Maybe you think driving should only be available to richer folk? Sounds very much like another step towards another feudal system in my opinion......


----------



## QFour

Well I never. You are better off having an Electric Car in Paris than London. According to Chargemap there are 279 charging points in London and 3062 in Paris. Looks like London will have to get a move on. I do wonder though where the Chancellor is going to get his Duty from £28.4 billion in *2019*-20. Fuel is taxed at 20% VAT where electricity is only 5%.

Like Trevor's idea of using lamp posts but trying to get more than two vehicles near one could be a problem. Then you are going to have the problem of different connectors. They cannot even agree on a standard design with most charging points having 3 connectors.


----------



## barge1914

Fisherman said:


> I know what’s being stated is 2035 but the reason this was brought forward was the ultimate target is 2050 when it’s planned that no internal combustion cars and vans will be on the road. It was felt that 2040 would not have allowed enough time to eradicate internal combustion engines by 2050.
> Let’s wait for the announcement and then deduce exactly what vehicles will be banned.


I think I will have been eradicated by then!!


----------



## colinm

GreggBear said:


> True, but for a long time after the new tech is made mandatory, there won't be any cheap 2nd hand ones available. Maybe you think driving should only be available to richer folk? Sounds very much like another step towards another feudal system in my opinion......


There are already EV's on the road and have been for years, they are gradually getting more popular, they will be near same price as ICE by 2035.


----------



## barge1914

mariesnowgoose said:


> It's a massive logistical and cultural worldwide problem.
> 
> BUT - the complacent world leviathan is finally starting to be prodded one way or another, let's see how fast it wakes up (or not).
> 
> If the Chinese can build a 1,000 bed hospital in 2 weeks, there has to be some hope for the future?
> There will be problems right across the board regardless, too much on our planet has been damaged/lost already.
> 
> Me, I will just be quite happy to be compos mentis and walking around in 10 years time, diesel moho or no diesel moho.
> 
> Just pleased our latest van didn't cost us tens of thousands, so am perfectly content to run it into the ground, then wait see what happens after that - if I'm still alive, that is


2 weeks, wow, the fastest I ever managed was a 9 week maternity hospital in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## mariesnowgoose

barge1914 said:


> 2 weeks, wow, the fastest I ever managed was a 9 week maternity hospital in Saudi Arabia.



Don't you mean 9 months?


----------



## GreggBear

colinmd said:


> There are already EV's on the road and have been for years, they are gradually getting more popular, they will be near same price as ICE by 2035.


Yes true, but the early ones aren't very good in regard to charge time/distance per charge. My old 500quid van does 45mpg & runs all day without missing a beat. Early electric vehicles can't compete, yet gttheyre still out of my price range. If I look after my van it will be running for years. However you treat an electric car it will need thousands spending on new batteries every few years. Older vehicles are now getting more popular because of built in obscelesence & electric vehicles are no different. Modern vehicles are built with a limited lifespan & that is wrong, both for the customers & for the environment.


----------



## trevskoda

Martin P said:


> Not to forget the potential impact of self driving cars.
> They could potentially do away with a lot of car ownership.
> You could get of a train and into a car you had summoned online. After it had taken you where you wished it would register as unused and whisk off to its next job. Parking in cities( or in fact anywhere) would no longer be neccessary.
> A bit like a car version of a Boris bike but would come to you.
> (Good news for the pub industry!)
> Lots of testing going on on a runway near me.
> Just pay as you use
> Not so good for taxi drivers.
> Electric power for long distances, no problem. Just swap cars
> It will be second car ownership that dwindles first I think.
> Also having a car just to drive to and back from your local rail station every day and paying to park will be a thing of the past.
> I dont think electric cars on their own are going to be a revolution , self driving cars. That is the real advance


So when mummy and daddy take we johny down to aunts house at the sea side and he barfs or worse when mumsy is changing his dipper and it ends up all over the hire car ,then theres old grandad who pi--es through the seat on his way to hospital once again,how does this get sorted in a hire car.


----------



## trevskoda

GreggBear said:


> Yes true, but the early ones aren't very good in regard to charge time/distance per charge. My old 500quid van does 45mpg & runs all day without missing a beat. Early electric vehicles can't compete, yet gttheyre still out of my price range. If I look after my van it will be running for years. However you treat an electric car it will need thousands spending on new batteries every few years. Older vehicles are now getting more popular because of built in obscelesence & electric vehicles are no different. Modern vehicles are built with a limited lifespan & that is wrong, both for the customers & for the environment.


Henry halls,tesla and vw have tested and recon 40 years on one battery pack,this test is done by working out the loss over a few years,batterys also have a inbuilt 25% reserve which they can switch on from mobile ph towers,all car batteries are monitered at each charge point


----------



## mossypossy

We will have to look after our existing vehicles a bit better.
We require four times more cobalt to meet 2030 targets than the world has in it's entirety - there simply will not be the electricity infrastructure nor generation capacity by 2030 to meet projected targets. If every household in the average street expects to have a 100kW charging point set up, all expecting to charge in the evenings or overnight, there will need to be a bottom up wholescale rebuilding of the electricity distribution infrastructure from the 415V pillars upwards. This will cost £Billions, never mind the logistics and complexities of actually doing the work, resourcing, the materials, cabling, transformers, etc. We in essence have less than ten years to completely overhaul the UK's electricity infrastructure, which simply will not happen.


----------



## molly 2

How many wealthy people own several homes that are kept warm while uninhabited and don't give a toss about the cost or pollution they cause .simply because they can afford it .how many MPs fall into this bracket .  #Boris


----------



## Martin P

trevskoda said:


> So when mummy and daddy take we johny down to aunts house at the sea side and he barfs or worse when mumsy is changing his dipper and it ends up all over the hire car ,then theres old grandad who pi--es through the seat on his way to hospital once again,how does this get sorted in a hire car.


Lol. Have you seen those automatic toilets that fold up and wash themselves.
Welcome to the future of motoring.

But seriously. That is a fair point
Ah yes. The cars will of course be fitted with a camera and sensors.
Any found to be in a mess will be recalled to central operating areas


----------



## argoose

We'll all be running round like the Flintstones


----------



## Minisorella

Fisherman said:


> Whilst I agree that we are over populated and that's set to get worse, there is much we can and must do about how we live. *It's simply not an option to say that we can't make any difference, of course we can, and of course we must*. Doing nothing, burying our heads in the sand and hoping it will sort itself out, is not an option.



*How* though? I'm sick to the back teeth of being bullied via the media etc and told that I must start listening, I must take action, I must reduce my carbon footprint, I must DO something to save the planet. Well I've been listening for decades, long before it became fashionable, and I already do everything I can to help - logically, practically and financially - and it's less than a micro-fraction of a drop in the poor old polluted ocean. Fact is, individuals can't help anywhere near enough to stop, let alone cure this. Even if every individual in the UK produced no emissions at all, all that lovely clean air over the country would just blow to the four corners and be replaced with pollution from less enlightened nations.  Nothing will make a big enough difference unless the whole world joins in and all the speeches and conferences and empty pledges won't do it. We need far more wide-reaching and far better practical _solutions_ from governments, big business, scientists, inventors and manufacturers, to give individuals the means and/or financial help to truly make a rapid difference. Let's look at the environmental and anti-pollution measures enacted so far.

Plastic bags in supermarkets:  More about pollution but still a contributor to harmful gases because dumped plastics can give off harmful gases as they warn up and degrade, particularly in the ocean. I've been taking my own bags/baskets to supermarkets for a couple of decades - again, long before it became fashionable, but have they banned plastic bags even now? No, instead they charge for them.
Result: Someone somewhere makes money out of the scheme and the practice goes on pretty much as before.

LEZ type, clean air restrictions: Both my vehicles are diesel. There's not a great deal of choice with motorhomes as yet but when I bought my car, diesel was deemed the environmentally-friendly option and the right thing to do. I can't afford electric anything other than a bike, which I use as much as I can locally, despite a dire lack of cycle paths. Even if I could find the money to change my car to petrol, this would reduce the NOX emissions but increase CO2, so not really a solution. I never drive my vehicles into my nearest big city, London (always get the train) but if I wanted to I can because LEZ type schemes generally don't stop all polluting vehicles from coming in, they just charge for the privilege.
Result: Someone somewhere makes money out of the scheme and the practice goes on pretty much as before.

Recycling: Again, more about pollution than climate change but dumped plastics are bad news all round. I've recycled for donkey's years and I'm lucky because our local schemes are really up to date with a huge variety of materials included in recycling these days. Old clothes and textiles either go to charity shops or to the local recycling centre (tip) - ditto with wood, metals, electrical items, paint, etc, etc. Behind all this, someone somewhere has to make money out of the scheme to make it viable without massive Government grants. Landfill is bad news and gases are produced as waste decomposes. Incineration had a bad name in the past but could well be the way to go because it's come on in leaps and bounds over the years. The Danish incineration plants are the cleanest in the world and only 5% of waste goes into landfill in Denmark.
Result: Far too much stuff is still dumped because there are no financial incentives, grants or motivation to companies to recycle everything that's available or to find cleaner disposal methods... at least until someone, somewhere can make money out of it!

Carbon offset: I don't fly very often but I do occasionally because my daughter lives in Australia, so I don't consider giving up flying a viable or fair option for me - or any parent with children overseas. Even so, the last time I went to Australia was in 2016 and I'm not going this year, so we're talking once in about 5 years. I'll generally tick the box to offset my carbon footprint but this obviously doesn't reduce the pollution caused in the first place.  With enormous luck, promises will be kept and extra trees will be planted somewhere in the world to help with CO2 absorption. Meanwhile, people who fly frequently and unnecessarily have their conscience eased... and don't get me started on private jets to get people to climate conferences! Even Greta, bless her little cotton puppet strings, has a far greater carbon footprint than your average Jo or Josephine, despite the publicity around one of her trips by carbon fibre boat. By the way, toilet waste was dumped in the sea.
Result: Someone somewhere likely makes money out of the scheme and the practice goes on pretty much as before, although we may get more CO2-eating trees in the world.

Has someone come up with an affordable, powerful filter conversion kit for cars to remove damaging particulates and gasses? No
Has someone come up with an _affordable _kit to convert combustion engines to electric? No. (They do exist but not for normal budgets!)
Cheap replacement engines? No
Has anyone completely banned non-recyclable plastic? No
Are electric cars affordable and practical in the UK? No
Is battery technology good enough at the moment to serve all vehicle needs and do we have enough charging points? No
Do we have automatic induction charging strips along highways - eg, as in Norway? No
Is there a scheme to replace household boilers with electric ones without huge cost to home owners? No (Mine's only 4 years old, so forget it - it's got to see me out now!)
Has anyone banned or converted the enormous ships responsible for more pollution than all the road vehicles in the world put together? No
Have we come up with any new forms of power other than nuclear, in the past, say, 100 years? No (A French scientist invented/discovered solar power in 1989 and the first practical cell was put into use in 1954.)
Has local transport improved to the point where we can give up our cars for most journeys? No. In fact, trying to live a green, simple life in country villages almost ensures that you have to have a car to get anywhere!
Are there good cycle tracks in most places? No

So far, have governments (global, national or local), big businesses or manufacturers done anything specific to help me, as an individual, save the planet? I really don't think so.


Apologies for a war and peace epic but it's been building up for a while now and I needed to vent! Now I'll go back to living my life in as harmless a way as possible until people who can truly make a difference choose to act instead of talk!


----------



## GreggBear

Your statements are bang on! Nobody in power seems to give a shit about the environment, other than how can they manipulate the situation to make money. Taking money from us all won't make any difference to the planet, we need action. I too try to make a change but as you say if the big players won't fall in line what chance have we got?...


----------



## Tonybvi

I am not an advocate of electric cars but I happen to own one.  Why?  Because I just wanted one, I am lucky enough to be able to afford one (even though I agree that they are grossly overpriced), I am lucky enough to have a garage and have a home charger in it and I am lucky enough to live in Scotland where the majority of public chargers are free.
My car has a quoted range of 325 miles (in practice 300 miles in summer, 250 miles in winter).  I frequently go down to Preston in it, a one way journey of 300 miles.  I take one stop at a supercharger (free) en route to top up so I can run around with the car in a Preston.  This takes around 20 minutes while a have a comfort break, maybe a coffee, maybe something to eat.  I would have had a stop like this in my diesel car so in practice it takes no longer to do a 300 mile trip in my BEV than in my old ICE car.
Luckily my vehicle has access to a superb network of superchargers which are very fast and well located throughout the UK and they cost me nothing.  However I accept that EVs are very expensive and that for them to be practical in the UK we need a vastly improved charger infrastructure.  Until this happens electric cars are simply not viable for the majority of the population.  I love my BEV and think it’s one of the best cars I have ever owned and is as practical as my lovely old diesel Skoda.  
Electric cars and infrastructure will improve - just look at Norway where more than 60% of new cars sold are electric because they have a)invested heavily in infrastructure and b)give huge incentives to EV purchasers.


----------



## Asterix

mossypossy said:


> We will have to look after our existing vehicles a bit better.
> We require four times more cobalt to meet 2030 targets than the world has in it's entirety - there simply will not be the electricity infrastructure nor generation capacity by 2030 to meet projected targets. If every household in the average street expects to have a 100kW charging point set up, all expecting to charge in the evenings or overnight, there will need to be a bottom up wholescale rebuilding of the electricity distribution infrastructure from the 415V pillars upwards. This will cost £Billions, never mind the logistics and complexities of actually doing the work, resourcing, the materials, cabling, transformers, etc. We in essence have less than ten years to completely overhaul the UK's electricity infrastructure, which simply will not happen.



The petroleum industry uses masses of Cobalt to process fuel,as fossil fuel use goes down, availability of Cobalt will increase,we are probably at a hump in the road currently as fossil versus renewable compete for it.
Future energy requirements can (and are in some countries) be fed back into the grid from cars, essentially using them as storage for peak demands,and topping them up during low demand.


----------



## witzend

As electric come in fuel sales will drop garages will stop fuel and lpg sales prices will go thru the roof


----------



## Fazerloz

When people say save the planet. It doesn't need saving it will still be here. Just different and better off without the human species. Does anyone think we really deserve it.


----------



## Nabsim

trevskoda said:


> Henry halls,tesla and vw have tested and recon 40 years on one battery pack,this test is done by working out the loss over a few years,batterys also have a inbuilt 25% reserve which they can switch on from mobile ph towers,all car batteries are monitered at each charge point


They had a 2012 Nissan Leaf in TopGear last series Trev and the effective battery life was just 35 miles. The said the car was effectively scrap.


----------



## 2cv

Battery life is becoming less of a problem as technology rapidly improves.


----------



## barge1914

Tonybvi said:


> I am not an advocate of electric cars but I happen to own one.  Why?  Because I just wanted one, I am lucky enough to be able to afford one (even though I agree that they are grossly overpriced), I am lucky enough to have a garage and have a home charger in it and I am lucky enough to live in Scotland where the majority of public chargers are free.
> My car has a quoted range of 325 miles (in practice 300 miles in summer, 250 miles in winter).  I frequently go down to Preston in it, a one way journey of 300 miles.  I take one stop at a supercharger (free) en route to top up so I can run around with the car in a Preston.  This takes around 20 minutes while a have a comfort break, maybe a coffee, maybe something to eat.  I would have had a stop like this in my diesel car so in practice it takes no longer to do a 300 mile trip in my BEV than in my old ICE car.
> Luckily my vehicle has access to a superb network of superchargers which are very fast and well located throughout the UK and they cost me nothing.  However I accept that EVs are very expensive and that for them to be practical in the UK we need a vastly improved charger infrastructure.  Until this happens electric cars are simply not viable for the majority of the population.  I love my BEV and think it’s one of the best cars I have ever owned and is as practical as my lovely old diesel Skoda.
> Electric cars and infrastructure will improve - just look at Norway where more than 60% of new cars sold are electric because they have a)invested heavily in infrastructure and b)give huge incentives to EV purchasers.


Norwegians also have oodles of hydropower, so much they are building a big power hub to ship electricity to UK.


----------



## barge1914

mariesnowgoose said:


> Don't you mean 9 months?


Oops, so I actually do. All so the minister of health could tell the King where his hospital in Medina had got to.


----------



## mark61

The Nordic/Scandinavian countries have a head start. Most of their car parks already have an existing supply for engine block heaters. These are very easily converted to charging.


----------



## izwozral

Minisorella said:


> *How* though? I'm sick to the back teeth of being bullied via the media etc and told that I must start listening, I must take action, I must reduce my carbon footprint, I must DO something to save the planet. Well I've been listening for decades, long before it became fashionable, and I already do everything I can to help - logically, practically and financially - and it's less than a micro-fraction of a drop in the poor old polluted ocean. Fact is, individuals can't help anywhere near enough to stop, let alone cure this. Even if every individual in the UK produced no emissions at all, all that lovely clean air over the country would just blow to the four corners and be replaced with pollution from less enlightened nations.  Nothing will make a big enough difference unless the whole world joins in and all the speeches and conferences and empty pledges won't do it. We need far more wide-reaching and far better practical _solutions_ from governments, big business, scientists, inventors and manufacturers, to give individuals the means and/or financial help to truly make a rapid difference. Let's look at the environmental and anti-pollution measures enacted so far.
> 
> Plastic bags in supermarkets:  More about pollution but still a contributor to harmful gases because dumped plastics can give off harmful gases as they warn up and degrade, particularly in the ocean. I've been taking my own bags/baskets to supermarkets for a couple of decades - again, long before it became fashionable, but have they banned plastic bags even now? No, instead they charge for them.
> Result: Someone somewhere makes money out of the scheme and the practice goes on pretty much as before.
> 
> LEZ type, clean air restrictions: Both my vehicles are diesel. There's not a great deal of choice with motorhomes as yet but when I bought my car, diesel was deemed the environmentally-friendly option and the right thing to do. I can't afford electric anything other than a bike, which I use as much as I can locally, despite a dire lack of cycle paths. Even if I could find the money to change my car to petrol, this would reduce the NOX emissions but increase CO2, so not really a solution. I never drive my vehicles into my nearest big city, London (always get the train) but if I wanted to I can because LEZ type schemes generally don't stop all polluting vehicles from coming in, they just charge for the privilege.
> Result: Someone somewhere makes money out of the scheme and the practice goes on pretty much as before.
> 
> Recycling: Again, more about pollution than climate change but dumped plastics are bad news all round. I've recycled for donkey's years and I'm lucky because our local schemes are really up to date with a huge variety of materials included in recycling these days. Old clothes and textiles either go to charity shops or to the local recycling centre (tip) - ditto with wood, metals, electrical items, paint, etc, etc. Behind all this, someone somewhere has to make money out of the scheme to make it viable without massive Government grants. Landfill is bad news and gases are produced as waste decomposes. Incineration had a bad name in the past but could well be the way to go because it's come on in leaps and bounds over the years. The Danish incineration plants are the cleanest in the world and only 5% of waste goes into landfill in Denmark.
> Result: Far too much stuff is still dumped because there are no financial incentives, grants or motivation to companies to recycle everything that's available or to find cleaner disposal methods... at least until someone, somewhere can make money out of it!
> 
> Carbon offset: I don't fly very often but I do occasionally because my daughter lives in Australia, so I don't consider giving up flying a viable or fair option for me - or any parent with children overseas. Even so, the last time I went to Australia was in 2016 and I'm not going this year, so we're talking once in about 5 years. I'll generally tick the box to offset my carbon footprint but this obviously doesn't reduce the pollution caused in the first place.  With enormous luck, promises will be kept and extra trees will be planted somewhere in the world to help with CO2 absorption. Meanwhile, people who fly frequently and unnecessarily have their conscience eased... and don't get me started on private jets to get people to climate conferences! Even Greta, bless her little cotton puppet strings, has a far greater carbon footprint than your average Jo or Josephone, despite the publicity around one of her trips by carbon fibre boat. By the way, toilet waste was dumped in the sea.
> Result: Someone somewhere likely makes money out of the scheme and the practice goes on pretty much as before, although we may get more CO2 eating trees in the world.
> 
> Has someone come up with an affordable, powerful filter conversion kit for cars to remove damaging particulates and gasses? No
> Has someone come up with an _affordable _kit to convert combustion engines to electric? No. (They do exist but not for normal budgets!)
> Cheap replacement engines? No
> Has anyone completely banned non-recyclable plastic? No
> Are electric cars affordable and practical in the UK? No
> Is battery technology good enough at the moment to serve all vehicle needs and do we have enough charging points? No
> Do we have automatic induction charging strips along highways - eg, as in Norway? No
> Is there a scheme to replace household boilers with electric ones without huge cost to home owners? No (Mine's only 4 years old, so forget it - it's got to see me out now!)
> Has anyone banned or converted the enormous ships responsible for more pollution than all the road vehicles in the world put together? No
> Have we come up with any new forms of power other than nuclear, in the past, say, 100 years? No (A French scientist invented/discovered solar power in 1989 and the first practical cell was put into use in 1954.)
> Has local transport improved to the point where we can give up our cars for most journeys? No. In fact, trying to live a green, simple life in country villages almost ensures that you have to have a car to get anywhere!
> Are there good cycle tracks in most places? No
> 
> So far, have governments (global, national or local), big businesses or manufacturers done anything specific to help me, as an individual, save the planet? I really don't think so.
> 
> 
> Apologies for a war and peace epic but it's been building up for a while now and I needed to vent! Now I'll go back to living my life in as harmless a way as possible until people who can truly make a difference choose to act instead of talk!



Where is the cheer and hand clap emoji, brilliant post.


----------



## bobj808

I think non internal combustion engines are the future and we keep hearing of the huge uptake in Norway. No wonder our Viking cousins are buying them - they do not pay any VAT(25%), no VED, get to use bus lanes and get free dedicated town/city centre parking and their electricity is 8.3p per KW. If I lived their I would buy one as the incentives are great. What does the UK do? Cuts the subsidy on electric vehicle purchase. And the solar panel feed in. They don't give a crap apart from loving the sound of their own voices.


----------



## sparrks

The greenest option short term would be to keep the ICE but use Hydrogen for fueling it.
I'm curious as to how many tons of GG that the volcano in Indonesia and fires in Australia produce.


----------



## runnach

bobj808 said:


> I think non internal combustion engines are the future and we keep hearing of the huge uptake in Norway. No wonder our Viking cousins are buying them - they do not pay any VAT(25%), no VED, get to use bus lanes and get free dedicated town/city centre parking and their electricity is 8.3p per KW. If I lived their I would buy one as the incentives are great. What does the UK do? Cuts the subsidy on electric vehicle purchase. And the solar panel feed in. They don't give a crap apart from loving the sound of their own voices.


That is the absolute commitment we need by government to shift mindsets.

Electric ranges etc are improving alternative sustainable fuels less damaging to the environment the technology is gaining traction .

A timely point to remind ourselves , there was a man who failed close to a thousand times developing a product , when asked how it felt to fail a thousand times , he shrugged and rephrased I haven’t failed simply discovered a thousand ways that didn’t work (that’s mindset) he eventually got it right and I bet most have used one today...Thomas Edison’s lightbulb


----------



## Fazerloz

mark61 said:


> The Nordic/Scandinavian countries have a head start. Most of their car parks already have an existing supply for engine block heaters. These are very easily converted to charging.



People keep quoting the Scandinavian  countries  but it is relatively easy to do with small populations and a relatively a small  number  of vehicles.


----------



## Fazerloz

sparrks said:


> The greenest option short term would be to keep the ICE but use Hydrogen for fueling it.
> I'm curious as to how many tons of GG that the volcano in Indonesia and fires in Australia produce.


One decent volcano and the whole  world  turns  to shit anyway .


----------



## Fisherman

barge1914 said:


> I think I will have been eradicated by then!!



And what about your children and your grandchildren then


----------



## Fisherman

Minisorella said:


> *How* though? I'm sick to the back teeth of being bullied via the media etc and told that I must start listening, I must take action, I must reduce my carbon footprint, I must DO something to save the planet. Well I've been listening for decades, long before it became fashionable, and I already do everything I can to help - logically, practically and financially - and it's less than a micro-fraction of a drop in the poor old polluted ocean. Fact is, individuals can't help anywhere near enough to stop, let alone cure this. Even if every individual in the UK produced no emissions at all, all that lovely clean air over the country would just blow to the four corners and be replaced with pollution from less enlightened nations.  Nothing will make a big enough difference unless the whole world joins in and all the speeches and conferences and empty pledges won't do it. We need far more wide-reaching and far better practical _solutions_ from governments, big business, scientists, inventors and manufacturers, to give individuals the means and/or financial help to truly make a rapid difference. Let's look at the environmental and anti-pollution measures enacted so far.
> 
> Plastic bags in supermarkets:  More about pollution but still a contributor to harmful gases because dumped plastics can give off harmful gases as they warn up and degrade, particularly in the ocean. I've been taking my own bags/baskets to supermarkets for a couple of decades - again, long before it became fashionable, but have they banned plastic bags even now? No, instead they charge for them.
> Result: Someone somewhere makes money out of the scheme and the practice goes on pretty much as before.
> 
> LEZ type, clean air restrictions: Both my vehicles are diesel. There's not a great deal of choice with motorhomes as yet but when I bought my car, diesel was deemed the environmentally-friendly option and the right thing to do. I can't afford electric anything other than a bike, which I use as much as I can locally, despite a dire lack of cycle paths. Even if I could find the money to change my car to petrol, this would reduce the NOX emissions but increase CO2, so not really a solution. I never drive my vehicles into my nearest big city, London (always get the train) but if I wanted to I can because LEZ type schemes generally don't stop all polluting vehicles from coming in, they just charge for the privilege.
> Result: Someone somewhere makes money out of the scheme and the practice goes on pretty much as before.
> 
> Recycling: Again, more about pollution than climate change but dumped plastics are bad news all round. I've recycled for donkey's years and I'm lucky because our local schemes are really up to date with a huge variety of materials included in recycling these days. Old clothes and textiles either go to charity shops or to the local recycling centre (tip) - ditto with wood, metals, electrical items, paint, etc, etc. Behind all this, someone somewhere has to make money out of the scheme to make it viable without massive Government grants. Landfill is bad news and gases are produced as waste decomposes. Incineration had a bad name in the past but could well be the way to go because it's come on in leaps and bounds over the years. The Danish incineration plants are the cleanest in the world and only 5% of waste goes into landfill in Denmark.
> Result: Far too much stuff is still dumped because there are no financial incentives, grants or motivation to companies to recycle everything that's available or to find cleaner disposal methods... at least until someone, somewhere can make money out of it!
> 
> Carbon offset: I don't fly very often but I do occasionally because my daughter lives in Australia, so I don't consider giving up flying a viable or fair option for me - or any parent with children overseas. Even so, the last time I went to Australia was in 2016 and I'm not going this year, so we're talking once in about 5 years. I'll generally tick the box to offset my carbon footprint but this obviously doesn't reduce the pollution caused in the first place.  With enormous luck, promises will be kept and extra trees will be planted somewhere in the world to help with CO2 absorption. Meanwhile, people who fly frequently and unnecessarily have their conscience eased... and don't get me started on private jets to get people to climate conferences! Even Greta, bless her little cotton puppet strings, has a far greater carbon footprint than your average Jo or Josephone, despite the publicity around one of her trips by carbon fibre boat. By the way, toilet waste was dumped in the sea.
> Result: Someone somewhere likely makes money out of the scheme and the practice goes on pretty much as before, although we may get more CO2-eating trees in the world.
> 
> Has someone come up with an affordable, powerful filter conversion kit for cars to remove damaging particulates and gasses? No
> Has someone come up with an _affordable _kit to convert combustion engines to electric? No. (They do exist but not for normal budgets!)
> Cheap replacement engines? No
> Has anyone completely banned non-recyclable plastic? No
> Are electric cars affordable and practical in the UK? No
> Is battery technology good enough at the moment to serve all vehicle needs and do we have enough charging points? No
> Do we have automatic induction charging strips along highways - eg, as in Norway? No
> Is there a scheme to replace household boilers with electric ones without huge cost to home owners? No (Mine's only 4 years old, so forget it - it's got to see me out now!)
> Has anyone banned or converted the enormous ships responsible for more pollution than all the road vehicles in the world put together? No
> Have we come up with any new forms of power other than nuclear, in the past, say, 100 years? No (A French scientist invented/discovered solar power in 1989 and the first practical cell was put into use in 1954.)
> Has local transport improved to the point where we can give up our cars for most journeys? No. In fact, trying to live a green, simple life in country villages almost ensures that you have to have a car to get anywhere!
> Are there good cycle tracks in most places? No
> 
> So far, have governments (global, national or local), big businesses or manufacturers done anything specific to help me, as an individual, save the planet? I really don't think so.
> 
> 
> Apologies for a war and peace epic but it's been building up for a while now and I needed to vent! Now I'll go back to living my life in as harmless a way as possible until people who can truly make a difference choose to act instead of talk!



Oh well let’s all give up. Obviously there is nothing wrong and we should just get on with what we are doing now. After all the planets resources are limitless, and we can simply do what we are doing forever.


----------



## mark61

Fazerloz said:


> People keep quoting the Scandinavian  countries  but it is relatively easy to do with small populations and a relatively a small  number  of vehicles.


Yes, that's very true. Cousin was over from Finland just before Christmas, telling me how they'll be carbon neutral before the UK. Yeah, thats blooming easy with all that space and 5.5 million people. There are more than 5 million journeys done on just the London tube daily, that puts in into perspective for them.
Not that she completely buys into this carbon catastrophe stuff, even less after a few conversations with me


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> And what about your children and your grandchildren then


Some thought about that many years ago and decided that's the main problem, too many people and didnt think it fair to pass on all this crap to their kids. So they didn't have them. A pity more dont do it. There are simply too many people in the world.


----------



## trevskoda

Nabsim said:


> They had a 2012 Nissan Leaf in TopGear last series Trev and the effective battery life was just 35 miles. The said the car was effectively scrap.


Top gear,a entertainment show,nothing to do with cars at all.


----------



## mossypossy

Electric van









						A Behind-The-Scenes Look At Amazon's Upcoming Rivian Electric Van
					

We were already aware Amazon has ordered some 100,000 all-electric delivery vans from Rivian. Now, Amazon has released a related blog, video, and images.




					insideevs.com
				




Just looks a bit small.


----------



## runnach

Fazerloz said:


> One decent volcano and the whole  world  turns  to shit anyway .


Scale ability,in the uk is an issue and an infant infrastructure,, as attractive as renewable energy is as a solution we may well have to consider nuclear power which by its nature people will protest about


----------



## Martin P

Perhaps vehicles could be owned and the battery packs rented. Then rather than having to stop and charge it would just be a case of swapping batteries as per cordless tools.
Of course filling stations would have to have facilities and batteries would have to be standardised.......
Plus the batteries would be heavy..


----------



## Martin P

Betamax or vhs anyone


----------



## Fazerloz

channa said:


> Scale ability,in the uk is an issue and an infant infrastructure,, as attractive as renewable energy is as a solution we may well have to consider nuclear power which by its nature people will protest about


We should have done it years ago rather than buying in foreign nuclear generated electricity. There is nothing green about buying that in.


----------



## runnach

Fazerloz said:


> We should have done it years ago rather than buying in foreign nuclear generated electricity. There is nothing green about buying that in.


I totally agree Chris , the media haven’t cottoned on yet that most of our electric is opened by the french as in edf so how that will pan out re brexit arrangements seems mute 

There was speculation a couple of reactors built here by the Chinese ( why we can’t do it beyond me ) but that got strangled. I wouldn’t be syprised at the idea re surfacing when it becomes patently. Obvious. We need more supply...it may already be in the corridors of Westminster but politically the wrong time to announce plans


----------



## Fazerloz

As an aside I am currently outside Scampton watching the Red Arrows practice and it doesn't look like they are battery powered or bothered about their carbon footprint.


----------



## colinm

Fazerloz said:


> As an aside I am currently outside Scampton watching the Red Arrows practice and it doesn't look like they are battery powered or bothered about their carbon footprint.



Sooner or later someone will twig how the smoke is generated and try and get it banned.


----------



## Fazerloz

channa said:


> I totally agree Chris , the media haven’t cottoned on yet that most of our electric is opened by the french as in edf so how that will pan out re brexit arrangements seems mute
> 
> There was speculation a couple of reactors built here by the Chinese ( why we can’t do it beyond me ) but that got strangled. I wouldn’t be syprised at the idea re surfacing when it becomes patently. Obvious. We need more supply...it may already be in the corridors of Westminster but politically the wrong time to announce plans



With all the dithering and meetings this country does if they decided tomorrow it would take at least 10 years to get one online.


----------



## GreggBear

mossypossy said:


> Electric van
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Behind-The-Scenes Look At Amazon's Upcoming Rivian Electric Van
> 
> 
> We were already aware Amazon has ordered some 100,000 all-electric delivery vans from Rivian. Now, Amazon has released a related blog, video, and images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> insideevs.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just looks a bit small.


Amazing what you can afford when you don't pay your taxes......


----------



## Minisorella

Fisherman said:


> Oh well let’s all give up. Obviously there is nothing wrong and we should just get on with what we are doing now. After all the planets resources are limitless, and we can simply do what we are doing forever.


A 6 inch post and *that's* what you think you see?


----------



## trevskoda

colinmd said:


> Sooner or later someone will twig how the smoke is generated and try and get it banned.


They dont use coloured parafin any longer,its a dry powder.


----------



## trevskoda

channa said:


> That is the absolute commitment we need by government to shift mindsets.
> 
> Electric ranges etc are improving alternative sustainable fuels less damaging to the environment the technology is gaining traction .
> 
> A timely point to remind ourselves , there was a man who failed close to a thousand times developing a product , when asked how it felt to fail a thousand times , he shrugged and rephrased I haven’t failed simply discovered a thousand ways that didn’t work (that’s mindset) he eventually got it right and I bet most have used one today...Thomas Edison’s lightbulb


No one uses light bulbs these days except old farts who dont like change and dont beleave you when you tell them there 90% more efficient.


----------



## winks

Minisorella said:


> A 6 inch post and *that's* what you think you see?




I see what you’re getting at Jen. 

We have all grown accustomed to ever improving (?) levels of convenience and ease of personal transport for decades and the basic assumption that the market will have the answer to everything is probably a busted flush. Many of us do the best we can given our own particular circumstances and the seeking of profit in all things does not help with this massive and urgent problem/ opportunity. 

Onwards and upwards. 

Cheers

H


----------



## colinm

trevskoda said:


> They dont use coloured parafin any longer,its a dry powder.



you'd better tell the RAF that.








						The team | Royal Air Force
					

Pilots All 11 Red Arrows display pilots are fast jet pilots from front line Royal Air Force squadrons. Once they have finished their three-year tour with the team they will return to their Royal Air Force duties.




					www.raf.mod.uk
				





> *How the smoke is created*
> 
> The basic vapour colour is white, produced by injecting diesel into the hot exhaust from the jet engine. This reaches temperatures of over 400 degrees Celsius and vaporises immediately. The blue and red colours are made by mixing dye with the diesel. The dye and diesel is stored in a specially-modified pod fitted to each of the aircraft. The pilot releases the liquid by pushing One of three buttons on the control column. During the display each aircraft can produce smoke for a maximum duration of seven minutes. This gives the pilot five minutes of white smoke, and one minute each of red and blue smoke. For this reason, a ‘smoke plot’ is worked out extremely carefully to ensure that no aircraft runs out of smoke before the end of the display.


----------



## izwozral

Minisorella said:


> A 6 inch post and *that's* what you think you see?



Typical bloke, he think he see's 6" when the gal only see's 1"


----------



## bobj808

channa said:


> A timely point to remind ourselves , there was a man who failed close to a thousand times developing a product , when asked how it felt to fail a thousand times , he shrugged and rephrased I haven’t failed simply discovered a thousand ways that didn’t work (that’s mindset) he eventually got it right and I bet most have used one today...Thomas Edison’s lightbulb


Similar thing with WD40 - NASA needed a water repellent (Water Displacement = WD) and a company presented their product which they continually modified and was finally accepted for use on their 40th attempt. So big now the manufacturer call themselves - WD40.  Their dogged determination certainly paid off. Bob


----------



## Asterix

Might finally get to snooze while travelling.









						Nissan Leaf breaks UK record for longest self-driving car journey
					

Autonomous model completes complex 230-mile trip from Bedfordshire to Sunderland




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Geraldine

Boris has just sold off our car industry to Tesla me thinks. Should keep Trump happy before he gets his hands on our NHS and the pharmaceuticals.


----------



## colinm

Nissan Leaf's, probably the favourite EV in UK, is made in (amongst other places) Sunderland.


----------



## ricc

Fazerloz said:


> With all the dithering and meetings this country does if they decided tomorrow it would take at least 10 years to get one online.


hinkley c is still ten years from generating , been in pipeline for best part of 30 years.


----------



## trevskoda

colinmd said:


> you'd better tell the RAF that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The team | Royal Air Force
> 
> 
> Pilots All 11 Red Arrows display pilots are fast jet pilots from front line Royal Air Force squadrons. Once they have finished their three-year tour with the team they will return to their Royal Air Force duties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.raf.mod.uk


I was told at flying school that only older units used that < old tec >, now and a sinthetic is used to save our planet.


----------



## trevskoda

So i read it as you can get pissed in the m/home and it will take you back from the pub to a wild camp which has been prearranged spot,very fecken smart what next.


----------



## GreggBear

Wouldn't risk it trev. Imagine your driver less moho getting pulled over by a driverless policecar!....


----------



## trevskoda

GreggBear said:


> Wouldn't risk it trev. Imagine your driver less moho getting pulled over by a driverless policecar!....


Never thought of that and pos getting a vertual ticket


----------



## Dezi

Dezi said:


> Well things seem to have rapidly moved on since I put in my two pence this morning, including a lot of
> negative thinking.
> We have just got back from the market in Salisbury where we used the Britford park & ride service.
> 51.051754, -1.783730
> A couple of weeks ago Salisbury invested in several all electric busses to run on the park & ride system and we rode on one this morning,
> its the way forward folk.
> 
> Dezi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electric buses arrive for Salisbury Park & Ride
> 
> 
> Salisbury Reds now has three electric vehicles to add to their fleet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.spirefm.co.uk



Just as I pred---, Predic---, thought 

Dezi  









						Ministers unveil £50m plan to create UK’s first all-electric bus town | ITV News
					

The chosen town will be used as a model by the Government as it attempts to ensure all buses are fully electric by 2025. | ITV National News




					www.itv.com


----------



## trevskoda

runnach said:


> Torness reactors are UK build, so we do have the technology. Our submarine fleet, same. Incidentally and slightly off, topic. I participated in a careers day today at Dynamic Earth, Edinburgh, which was based on a Space theme, I never realised how big Scottish companies are involved within space industry!!


Its all in the scottish bicys you gave my kids as abby just passed her AQE with 107 marks,top school for her.


----------



## Martin P

runnach said:


> You obviously have not seen how the batteries are arranged within an EV. Far from a simple task to do a quick swap. You would be quicker swapping complete car, maybe this is the way to go?


No but I have a fair idea!
Battery cars are obviously still very much in their infancy and there will be many changes yet to come .
Swapping complete cars is not an idea without merit but as Trevskoda pointed out there are issues with cleanliness to be considered.
With self driving car devolopment coming on apace perhaps car ownnership itself is due for a radical rethink


----------



## mariesnowgoose

Martin P said:


> No but I have a fair idea!
> Battery cars are obviously still very much in their infancy and there will be many changes yet to come .
> Swapping complete cars is not an idea without merit but as Trevskoda pointed out there are issues with cleanliness to be considered.
> With self driving car devolopment coming on apace perhaps car ownnership itself is due for a radical rethink



Well, I'd certainly be up for swapping mohos having regularly drooled over some of the other members' posh vans at the meets


----------



## Martin P

mariesnowgoose said:


> Well, I'd certainly be up for swapping mohos having regularly drooled over some of the other members' posh vans at the meets


Never mind Marie
Quite often I find the value of the vehicle is inversely related to the value of the occupants!


----------



## Fazerloz

It would seem motorcycles and scooters not included.




__





						Honda's electric vision: Firm commits to ten plug-in models by 2025 | MCN
					





					www.motorcyclenews.com


----------



## ricc

swapping vehicles .... isnt that leasing?     just swopping a bit sooner than with a traditional 3 year lease.

only problem is the cost... at the moment leasing a internal combustion car costs what 250 a month .... we tend to buy arround the thousand pound mark, maintenance inc mot is usually below 500 a year,  .... its rare a banger is scrapped at less than 3 years with us....daughters pug 306 has been in the family over 10 years now.... so max cost of her car is 600 quid a year, ( A lot less when it sails through the mot.)...what can i lease for 50 quid a month?...salesman goes very quiet

as far as im concerned old bangers are the cheapest way to stay on the road.... ill do the green thing by not driving unnecessarily.

even if it means me doing the supermarket shopping on the same 20 mile round trip as viewing the local fortnightly auction rather than sending the wife seperatly.


----------



## Martin P

ricc said:


> swapping vehicles .... isnt that leasing?     just swopping a bit sooner than with a traditional 3 year lease.
> 
> only problem is the cost... at the moment leasing a internal combustion car costs what 250 a month .... we tend to buy arround the thousand pound mark, maintenance inc mot is usually below 500 a year,  .... its rare a banger is scrapped at less than 3 years with us....daughters pug 306 has been in the family over 10 years now.... so max cost of her car is 600 quid a year, ( A lot less when it sails through the mot.)...what can i lease for 50 quid a month?...salesman goes very quiet
> 
> as far as im concerned old bangers are the cheapest way to stay on the road.... ill do the green thing by not driving unnecessarily.
> 
> even if it means me doing the supermarket shopping on the same 20 mile round trip as viewing the local fortnightly auction rather than sending the wife seperatly.


The way I see it differs from leasing is that ultimately electric combined with self driving means you would only pay per hour or whatever.
The talk about an integrated travel system is on the right lines I think
You can get quite a few taxi rides for the cost of buying , running, maintaining insuring and taxing a vehicle.
Take the wages out of a taxi then the cost should not prevent anyone from being able to travel


----------



## Nabsim

Geraldine said:


> Boris has just sold off our car industry to Tesla me thinks. Should keep Trump happy before he gets his hands on our NHS and the pharmaceuticals.


Oh I don’t think so, Elon Musk is seen as a threat to the US government, he is now far too powerful and rich for them and they can’t control him. Who else has their own space station and launching strings of satellites to provide world wide internet lol


----------



## Nabsim

runnach said:


> You obviously have not seen how the batteries are arranged within an EV. Far from a simple task to do a quick swap. You would be quicker swapping complete car, maybe this is the way to go?


I remember many years ago one of the top gear boys at a Vauxhall plant somewhere taking a prototype ev out. It was brilliant but the great thing was the batteries, drive,transmission was a platform. The body was interchangeable so one day you could be in a family saloon, another in a sports car etc. It never saw the light of day but must have been at least ten years ago.

No reason the battery packs couldn’t be made as cassettes if they wanted to but it’s not practical. An exchangeable power cell to generate and charge however...


----------



## runnach

Leasing can work for some companies not others it is not a fit all solution 

Rich mentions a typical lease on a petrol engine car £250 per month ,normally 3 rentals as a deposit so 
£750 ."....so ask yourself this how many times have you been able to change a car after 3 years use for £750 ? That’s an attractive proposition to lot of companies especially those with tight working capital and sensitive cashflows

With leasing you dont pay all the capital back there is an outstanding balance at the end of the term which should be set slightly less than the cars market value ...so the next £750 deposit is within the car.

The market is different for business and individuals and some of the rules..if you enter an operating lease,contract hire ...the ch company claim the vat back and fund a net amount tax man gets his cut from vat on the rentals. Contract hire also can escalate tax relief reducing corporation tax ..also makes gearing ratios look better..typical salesman knows non of this so no wonder can’t give answers when asked.

You don’t buy a pig when you only want a bacon sandwich......leasing contract hire lease purchase personal contract purchase are relevant to some not to others...last and not least people have egos so have emotional needs to have a19 plate on the drive and latest model to up the Jones,

My personal preference and where I agree with ricc and trev is I have always done ok with used vehicles and have been prepared to take the risks that entails...of course all petrol or diesel,,,,very wary of the new technology which is in its infancy


----------



## Deleted member 84549

I very much doubt that they can force older vehicle owners off the road because of this. Petrol stations would go bust if they only sold electric. If a Tesla has a tonne of battery (that you have to practically take the car to bits to replace) and there are 25+ million cars to be replaced, the environmental impact would be massively worse by doing it. Also since around 30kg of lithium is needed per car and lithium is a rare earth metal, it becomes even more ludicrous  There would only be enough payload for a packet of crisps. Add to the fact that a lithium fire cannot be put out and it burns so quickly that people couldn't get the phones out of their pocket before their leg was severely burned, would you want to crash one? I intend to keep my diesel MH and keep my car also.


----------



## GreggBear

You might buy a pig if nobody near you sold bacon. Out here in the sticks electric vehicles will never be a sensible option because the govt don't give a shit about anything north of Watford! If everyone in the inner cities ran evs the problem wouldn't be so bad. There isn't an electric charging point anywhere within 5miles of me AFAIK, what bloody use would an ev be to me?


----------



## Owlhouse

The reasons behind going ‘carbon neutral’ are a complete sham. The people behind the doomsday predictions are nothing short of eco terrorists (Greenpeace, WWF etc) and want to change society to their socialist way and only their way. If we do go down the route of ‘carbon neutral’ it will be the end of our industry, freedom and we will end up with a closed down way of life similar to China. 
I am a retired engineer and can see through the deceptive information promulgated by the ‘eco’ alarmists, real data by real scientists proves them wrong time and time again. The truth is out there - you just have to find it. The time to see the emperor’s new clothes is coming.


----------



## vindiboy

I read on BBC news app that if you have a petrol or diesel  vehicle at  2035 you will still be able to drive it, yeah that is till they stop production of the fuel, the app  also said that  at that time there would be an electric charging point on e every lamp post, lots of dead dogs too  I expect heehee


----------



## Discokegs

Owlhouse said:


> The reasons behind going ‘carbon neutral’ are a complete sham. The people behind the doomsday predictions are nothing short of eco terrorists (Greenpeace, WWF etc) and want to change society to their socialist way and only their way. If we do go down the route of ‘carbon neutral’ it will be the end of our industry, freedom and we will end up with a closed down way of life similar to China.
> I am a retired engineer and can see through the deceptive information promulgated by the ‘eco’ alarmists, *real data by real scientists* proves them wrong time and time again. The truth is out there - you just have to find it. The time to see the emperor’s new clothes is coming.



Who are these real scientists?


----------



## Fisherman

Owlhouse said:


> The reasons behind going ‘carbon neutral’ are a complete sham. The people behind the doomsday predictions are nothing short of eco terrorists (Greenpeace, WWF etc) and want to change society to their socialist way and only their way. If we do go down the route of ‘carbon neutral’ it will be the end of our industry, freedom and we will end up with a closed down way of life similar to China.
> I am a retired engineer and can see through the deceptive information promulgated by the ‘eco’ alarmists, real data by real scientists proves them wrong time and time again. The truth is out there - you just have to find it. The time to see the emperor’s new clothes is coming.



Please give us some of this *real* data, and tell us who the *real* scientists are.
Can you also please highlight some of the *deceptive* information so that we can analyse it.
I used to be sceptical about global warming until I spent many hours studying it.
I looked really hard for real data (well what I thought was real data), and found plenty of real data. I looked for deceptive information, never found any. I read books and articles written by real scientists (well they claim to have BAs, MAs and PHDs)  watched many programmes about global warming. Conclusion, it’s happening right now.
Apologies if you reckon I have posted deceptively or that I am not real.


----------



## Deleted member 84549

Moped said:


> Check the carbon footprint for motorhome and airline travel.
> 
> For a motorhome to Alicante and back from Birmingham = just about 0.4 tonne total for the 1200 mile round trip and several months in Spain.
> 
> For airplane travel for 2 people for the same return trip = 1 tonne total and 1 or 2 weeks in Spain.
> 
> Maybe this point should be made to the government by the various motorhome interest groups?


Agreed, you can calculate that each plane passenger could drive there in a separate car and emit less pollution. Manchester want to charge £7.50 per day to anything that is not a car, my response included the fact that the people making these decisions can afford to change vehicle and likely holiday by plane which pollutes Manchester but none of that is included, not even the huge 4x4/saloons that do less mpg than my MH.


----------



## runnach

Fisherman said:


> Please give us some of this *real* data, and tell us who the *real* scientists are.
> Can you also please highlight some of the *deceptive* information so that we can analyse it.
> I used to be sceptical about global warming until I spent many hours studying it.
> I looked really hard for real data (well what I thought was real data), and found plenty of real data. I looked for deceptive information, never found any. I read books and articles written by real scientists (well they claim to have BAs, MAs and PHDs)  watched many programmes about global warming. Conclusion, it’s happening right now.
> Apologies if you reckon I have posted deceptively or that I am not real.


We don’t need to be scientist to understand some facts

World population is increasing
People require oxygen as do animals
Trees provide oxygen via photosynthesis
Plant and tree deforestation continues to occur despite sustainable inititiaves
All the above are established fact

Given the facts the balance is changing at an alarming rate and needs halting

Common sense, and all of the above ignores other issues like the oceans warming (fact) ice caps melting and having an effect in each corner of the world.

If people deny the impact and outcome will be different that’s totall y different the denial the worlds resurces aren’t changing is entirely different and simply not true


----------



## Nabsim

Electric motors is definitely one of the ways forward but using fuel cell technology not full of battery’s like most ev’s are.
To my mind though I just can’t understand why we haven’t switched to hydrogen, fill your tank and pay in a few minutes. Don’t need masses of cable infrastructure and disruption. I must be te thick


----------



## trevskoda

Nabsim said:


> Electric motors is definitely one of the ways forward but using fuel cell technology not full of battery’s like most ev’s are.
> To my mind though I just can’t understand why we haven’t switched to hydrogen, fill your tank and pay in a few minutes. Don’t need masses of cable infrastructure and disruption. I must be te thick


The problem with hydrogen is that it requires lots more power to strip it out of the atmosphere than charging cells,mind you the cycle of building and disposing of batterys is just as dirty,no simple fix im sorry to say.


----------



## Fisherman

channa said:


> We don’t need to be scientist to understand some facts
> 
> World population is increasing
> People require oxygen as do animals
> Trees provide oxygen via photosynthesis
> Plant and tree deforestation continues to occur despite sustainable inititiaves
> All the above are established fact
> 
> Given the facts the balance is changing at an alarming rate and needs halting
> 
> Common sense, and all of the above ignores other issues like the oceans warming (fact) ice caps melting and having an effect in each corner of the world.
> 
> If people deny the impact and outcome will be different that’s totall y different the denial the worlds resurces aren’t changing is entirely different and simply not true



I agree Andrew, we don't need scientist to tell us we are in bother, but Owlhouse described some as being real. I thought anyone with a science degree was a scientist, not only those who are global warming deniars.


----------



## Owlhouse

Fisherman said:


> Please give us some of this *real* data, and tell us who the *real* scientists are.
> Can you also please highlight some of the *deceptive* information so that we can analyse it.
> I used to be sceptical about global warming until I spent many hours studying it.
> I looked really hard for real data (well what I thought was real data), and found plenty of real data. I looked for deceptive information, never found any. I read books and articles written by real scientists (well they claim to have BAs, MAs and PHDs)  watched many programmes about global warming. Conclusion, it’s happening right now.
> Apologies if you reckon I have posted deceptively or that I am not real.


Real data is posted AND analysed on these websites: https://wattsupwiththat.com/ and https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/ 
The alarmist community hates sites like these because they give verifiable data and arguments that expose the lies of the alarmist.


----------



## korky

Owlhouse said:


> The reasons behind going ‘carbon neutral’ are a complete sham. The people behind the doomsday predictions are nothing short of eco terrorists (Greenpeace, WWF etc) and want to change society to their socialist way and only their way. If we do go down the route of ‘carbon neutral’ it will be the end of our industry, freedom and we will end up with a closed down way of life similar to China.
> I am a retired engineer and can see through the deceptive information promulgated by the ‘eco’ alarmists, real data by real scientists proves them wrong time and time again. The truth is out there - you just have to find it. The time to see the emperor’s new clothes is coming.


Ha ha.I love a good laugh me.


----------



## Fisherman

Owlhouse said:


> Real data is posted AND analysed on these websites: https://wattsupwiththat.com/ and https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
> The alarmist community hates sites like these because they give verifiable data and arguments that expose the lies of the alarmist.



So the data provided by everyone else is not real, only those who don't believe in global warming provide real data. interesting.


----------



## Fisherman

korky said:


> Ha ha.I love a good laugh me.



Korky folk still think we never landed on the moon, American gun laws make perfect sense, bush set up 911, aliens landed in Area 51, the jews were not massacred in the holocaust, Trump is innocent, and global warming is not happening.


----------



## korky

Fisherman said:


> Korky folk still think we never landed on the moon, American gun laws make perfect sense, bush set up 911, aliens landed in Area 51, the jews were not massacred in the holocaust, Trump is innocent, and global warming is not happening.


Or to quote Mr Orwell-"In a time of deceit,telling the truth is a revolutionary act."or "We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."He's got so many more,many so appropriate to these saddest of times.


----------



## Fisherman

I have a simple rule, try it.

IF DONALD TRUMP SAYS BLACK I SAY WHITE.
THAT WAY YOU KNOW YOU ARE SURE TO BE RIGHT.


----------



## Fazerloz

The thing about science and data is you need to dig real deep to find out exactly who is doing the funding for a study because the results will always be slanted to those doing the funding. There are really very few truly independent studies done. As with most things those with the most money wins.


----------



## trevskoda

The earth goes through cycles of hot/cold as proven from the ice field bore holes,fact is we are making some of it faster than we did in times past.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> The thing about science and data is you need to dig real deep to find out exactly who is doing the funding for a study because the results will always be slanted to those doing the funding. There are really very few truly independent studies done. As with most things those with the most money wins.



Like say,Esso, BP, Texaco, shell.
Tobacco companies are still denying that smoking kills people.
The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.
The consequences for us if correct are catastrophic.
To simply deny the possibility and carry on as we are is not an option.


----------



## Fisherman

trevskoda said:


> The earth goes through cycles of hot/cold as proven from the ice field bore holes,fact is we are making some of it faster than we did in times past.



Trev you are talking just like I was three years ago.
So you are three years behind me.
we should have a wee chat in three years
when you catch up  

Jokin Trev he he he


----------



## trevskoda

If global warming hits Gb & Ireland it should mean less flying to spain for hot hols,this will save on wasted jet fuel,more use of our vans at home to.


----------



## Fisherman

trevskoda said:


> If global warming hits Gb & Ireland it should mean less flying to spain for hot hols,this will save on wasted jet fuel,more use of our vans at home to.



bloody genius Trev


----------



## trevskoda

Fisherman said:


> bloody genius Trev


The truth is even if we try and fix this it may or may not be poss within our life time and prob well beyond.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Like say,Esso, BP, Texaco, shell.
> Tobacco companies are still denying that smoking kills people.
> The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.
> The consequences for us if correct are catastrophic.
> To simply deny the possibility and carry on as we are is not an option.



Exactly Like say World Nature Organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Global Environment Facility, and the Earth System Governance Project. 
All have there own view on it. For every argument there is a counter argument and to carry on as we are is a option whether you like it or not. Once those in control of money find a way of making more money out of change, then it will happen. Just like our own government trying to control things by using tax.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> Exactly Like say World Nature Organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Global Environment Facility, and the Earth System Governance Project.
> All have there own view on it. For every argument there is a counter argument and to carry on as we are is a option whether you like it or not. Once those in control of money find a way of making more money out of change, then it will happen. Just like our own government trying to control things by using tax.



All of these bodies you quote are legitimate organisations who have an interest in preserving our planet for future generations. Unlike the companies I quoted none of them have a financial or business interest in their campaigns for a better environment.
As for those in control of money, I think you are referring to our government.
Its estimated that the cost to this country reaching its zero emissions target by 2050 is between 1-1.5 TRILLION pounds.
Money they will have to generate, not a way for them to make money.






						Subscribe to read | Financial Times
					

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication




					www.ft.com
				




You state that doing nothing is an option, then you have to be 100% certain that you are right, I am not 100% certain I am right. Because if you are wrong, we are doomed.

As for wether I like this or not, sorry but that’s irrelevant.
Personally speaking I would much prefer that you are right and I am wrong.
Thats what I would like.


----------



## sparrks

Fisherman said:


> Like say,Esso, BP, Texaco, shell.
> Tobacco companies are still denying that smoking kills people.
> The evidence for global warming is overwhelming.
> The consequences for us if correct are catastrophic.
> To simply deny the possibility and carry on as we are is not an option.


You're a little behind with your thinking. Oil companies going green


----------



## Fisherman

sparrks said:


> You're a little behind with your thinking. Oil companies going green



so are the Saudis and other oil producers. They  are heavily into renewables, and having to diversify in order to survive.
But I was talking historically not present day, even oil companies know that things will have to change.


----------



## ricc

if you take climate change as a fact, theres no actual proof that its due to man.
even if you accept its due to man , taxing him to carry on isnt actually going to help.

the blunt truth is to stop man made climate change you need fundemental changes to society worldwide,   which just aint going to happen till the sh1t really  hits the fan .


----------



## colinm

ricc said:


> if you take climate change as a fact, theres no actual proof that its due to man.
> even if you accept its due to man , taxing him to carry on isnt actually going to help.
> 
> the blunt truth is to stop man made climate change you need fundemental changes to society worldwide,   which just aint going to happen till the sh1t really  hits the fan .



Tax has a great affect, as witnessed by the shift to deisel when the gov brought in tax based on co2 output.


----------



## Moped

colinmd said:


> Tax has a great affect, as witnessed by the shift to deisel when the gov brought in tax based on co2 output.


And also as witnessed by the slump in new motorhome sales in the UK with Euro 6d engines. The rest of Europe is very likely not suffering a motorhome sales slump in the same way. So yet again the UK government has implemented legislation to hurt UK manufacturing.


----------



## NeilyG

Personally, I think it will prove to be another 'fad' that turns out to cause more problems than it solves. How do they expect to produce enough electricity to power all vehicles when they're soon going to have enough trouble supplying homes, businesses etc.? (due to no new power stations being built.)

Surely, to have any chance they would have to cover just about EVERY tract of land with wind farms, solar panels and leave nothing left for wildlife, trees etc. And the supply would only be intermittent & weather dependant, as the logistics for energy storage have yet to be overcome. Just how does anyone imagine it can work? The only viable option that many environmentalists are now coming round to is to go NUCLEAR - & we would have to start building them right now! 

Seems a bit of a joke to see how they can achieve this - just another 'soundbite'. Most attempts to deal with 'climate emergency' will turn out to do more harm than good.


----------



## bobj808

It is well known that broadleaf trees absorb and store CO2. Nature programmes bombard us with the loss of the South American rainforests. So why doesn't the clever Old World do something about it. Why don't we stop aid to China, India etc and provide machinery, seeds and knowhow so New World farmers can continue to use their land as opposed to continually clearing forest to obtain one time use barely fertile soil. Seems simple to me - would at least be doing something about things together with other projects.


----------



## Robmac

bobj808 said:


> It is well known that broadleaf trees absorb and store CO2. Nature programmes bombard us with the loss of the South American rainforests. So why doesn't the clever Old World do something about it. Why don't we stop aid to China, India etc and provide machinery, seeds and knowhow so New World farmers can continue to use their land as opposed to continually clearing forest to obtain one time use barely fertile soil. Seems simple to me - would at least be doing something about things together with other projects.



I think that plankton are the true lungs of the earth, so protecting the oceans is equally important.


----------



## Robmac

Robmac said:


> I think that plankton are the true lungs of the earth, so protecting the oceans is equally important.



Interesting article here;









						The Amazon Is Not Earth’s Lungs
					

Humans could burn every living thing on the planet and still not dent its oxygen supply.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Owlhouse

Fisherman said:


> So the data provided by everyone else is not real, only those who don't believe in global warming provide real data. interesting.


Why is the data provided by alarmist ‘scientists’ adjusted to suit what they want? If their data doesn’t fit the problem then it is adjusted to fit. Over the last twenty years even with more Co2 being outputted global temperatures have not increased except in climate models. 
 If a lie is told often enough it gets believed. Believe what you want but look objectively at ALL sides. I have and do not want to ruin my country by following the likes of Greenpeace and the totally biased BBC.


----------



## izwozral

Robmac said:


> I think that plankton are the true lungs of the earth, so protecting the oceans is equally important.




I think the bubbles in beer froth are THE real lungs of the earth.
Solution - brew more beer!


----------



## Robmac

izwozral said:


> I think the bubbles in beer froth are THE real lungs of the earth.
> Solution - brew more beer!



I'll drink to that Ral!


----------



## Fisherman

Owlhouse said:


> Why is the data provided by alarmist ‘scientists’ adjusted to suit what they want? If their data doesn’t fit the problem then it is adjusted to fit. Over the last twenty years even with more Co2 being outputted global temperatures have not increased except in climate models.
> If a lie is told often enough it gets believed. Believe what you want but look objectively at ALL sides. I have and do not want to ruin my country by following the likes of Greenpeace and the totally biased BBC.



Alarmist scientists ? you think they want global warming. Nobody wants global warming. Well almost nobody.
Everyone claims the BBC are biased, but what have they got to do with global warming.
All they do is report what is given to them. they don't make scientific judgments.
Global temperatures have increased over the last 20 years.
But I suppose you will put that down to adjustment to the figures, and or wrongly and bias reporting from the BBC.


----------



## trevskoda

I can always buy a car in the irish republic and import it or get a southern base to reg it.


----------



## mark61

Why did the BBC dump Bellamy?


----------



## Fisherman

mark61 said:


> Why did the BBC dump Bellamy?








						How can I ask a question about a BBC programme or service? | Contact the BBC
					

Programme or Service Enquiries  We know that many of you might have a question about something you have seen or heard on the BBC, or maybe you need help with one of our services.  From wanting to know when a certain programme is coming back, to finding out the piece of music in a programme you...




					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Fazerloz

Fazerloz said:


> Exactly Like say World Nature Organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Global Environment Facility, and the Earth System Governance Project.
> All have there own view on it. For every argument there is a counter argument and to carry on as we are is a option whether you like it or not. Once those in control of money find a way of making more money out of change, then it will happen. Just like our own government trying to control things by using tax.





Fisherman said:


> All of these bodies you quote are legitimate organisations who have an interest in preserving our planet for future generations. Unlike the companies I quoted none of them have a financial or business interest in their campaigns for a better environment.
> As for those in control of money, I think you are referring to our government.
> Its estimated that the cost to this country reaching its zero emissions target by 2050 is between 1-1.5 TRILLION pounds.
> Money they will have to generate, not a way for them to make money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subscribe to read | Financial Times
> 
> 
> News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You state that doing nothing is an option, then you have to be 100% certain that you are right, I am not 100% certain I am right. Because if you are wrong, we are doomed.
> 
> As for wether I like this or not, sorry but that’s irrelevant.
> Personally speaking I would much prefer that you are right and I am wrong.
> Thats what I would like.





Fisherman said:


> All of these bodies you quote are legitimate organisations who have an interest in preserving our planet for future generations. Unlike the companies I quoted none of them have a financial or business interest in their campaigns for a better environment.
> As for those in control of money, I think you are referring to our government.
> Its estimated that the cost to this country reaching its zero emissions target by 2050 is between 1-1.5 TRILLION pounds.
> Money they will have to generate, not a way for them to make money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subscribe to read | Financial Times
> 
> 
> News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You state that doing nothing is an option, then you have to be 100% certain that you are right, I am not 100% certain I am right. Because if you are wrong, we are doomed.
> 
> As for wether I like this or not, sorry but that’s irrelevant.
> Personally speaking I would much prefer that you are right and I am wrong.
> Thats what I would like.



Yes they are legitimate organisations just like oil companies are. All of those bodies control massive amounts of money and actively seek more money. In reality they are just businesses  with a equally vested interest in the outcome of their research just like oil companies. Only they use fear to a large extent to extract money.  The planet is doomed.
No its not. it will still be here.
I am not talking about Governments they are just puppets that have their strings pulled by big business. Ultimately the money to pay for this comes out of our pockets not the government.  Governments produce nothing of value.
Government=we need such and such done
Business= we will do it for x+y
Gov = OK
Business = Sorry now x+y+z
Gov =Tip the public upside down and give them a shake see what falls out of their pockets.
Business= Thank you.
= Big profit for business
The fat cats get fatter and no doubt so do some members of government.
Who told us to scrap our petrol engines buy diesel. They are far better for the environment.   and people bought into it. A very successful way of generating tax.
Lets increase the LEZ more tax ,yeah that will make things better. Now we can build another runway that will pollute more than all the cars in London.  You couldn't make it up.
You are right though to do nothing we are all doomed, but there again to do something we are all doomed, from the moment of conception we are all doomed.
Until all the major big polluting countries get on board all we are doing is pi-sing in the wind.

A simple question. IF you are so concerned for your children and grand children why are you still running a diesel engine. Does your conscience hurt every time you turn the key knowing you are further destroying the planet for them.


----------



## landoboguy

Tesla being delivered 11th 
may aswell give this leccy thingymubob a go


----------



## Tonybvi

landoboguy said:


> Tesla being delivered 11th
> may aswell give this leccy thingymubob a go


You won’t regret it.  I‘ve had my Raven X for 4 months now and absolutely love it.  Regularly do a 600mile round trip from Aberdeenshire to Preston with no problems at all.  Enjoy!


----------



## Asterix

landoboguy said:


> Tesla being delivered 11th
> may aswell give this leccy thingymubob a go



I'd love to take one for a spin,which one did you go for?


----------



## trevskoda

I had a run in a VW very impressed and went like sh-t of a shovel.


----------



## barge1914

NeilyG said:


> Personally, I think it will prove to be another 'fad' that turns out to cause more problems than it solves. How do they expect to produce enough electricity to power all vehicles when they're soon going to have enough trouble supplying homes, businesses etc.? (due to no new power stations being built.)
> 
> Surely, to have any chance they would have to cover just about EVERY tract of land with wind farms, solar panels and leave nothing left for wildlife, trees etc. And the supply would only be intermittent & weather dependant, as the logistics for energy storage have yet to be overcome. Just how does anyone imagine it can work? The only viable option that many environmentalists are now coming round to is to go NUCLEAR - & we would have to start building them right now!
> 
> Seems a bit of a joke to see how they can achieve this - just another 'soundbite'. Most attempts to deal with 'climate emergency' will turn out to do more harm than good.


When I was younger like many in the 60s Nuclear seemed to be a great idea, but nearly 60 years later we still haven't got a long term safe solution to all the sh... that the industry has produced so far...or found a way to guarantee that unstable earth, sea or politics won’t find a way of spreading it around in rather inconvenient and somewhat unhealthy ways...not sure it’s a legacy I feel comfortable leaving for my descendants.


----------



## trevskoda

Wave oe estury power will make lots of lecy twice a day with the tide.


----------



## mariesnowgoose

landoboguy said:


> Tesla being delivered 11th
> may aswell give this leccy thingymubob a go



My sister was just telling me yesterday that a friend of hers has got himself an electric Jaguar i-pace.

This is a man who has only every driven land rovers and whose business for most of his life was servicing and maintaining 4x4s.

Needless to say she took the mickey out of him something rotten - his scruffy dress will never match the car  - but he's a man who has always done his research with new technology and has nearly always proven to be ahead of the game.

I would try an electric car or motorhome - if I could ever afford one! And there's the rub...


----------



## landoboguy

Asterix said:


> I'd love to take one for a spin,which one did you go for?


Went for the models S Asterix. P90d. It's bad news on take off in ludicrous mode... Seriously. But the real reason is I was looking at another guzzler and thought if I worked out the fuel plus the almost 500 per year saving on road  tax congestion charges etc it's actually a good buy. Then the resale value as they hold OK it just made sense. 

Got to have the charger installed at the house with the olev grant Monday. It's early days but I can't help thinking we won't own another fossil fuel motor again. 2 people at my works are collecting electric cars in the next month 2.one is a leaf and one's the jag I pace.


----------



## landoboguy

mariesnowgoose said:


> My sister was just telling me yesterday that a friend of hers has got himself an electric Jaguar i-pace.
> 
> This is a man who has only every driven land rovers and whose business for most of his life was servicing and maintaining 4x4s.
> 
> Needless to say she took the mickey out of him something rotten - his scruffy dress will never match the car  - but he's a man who has always done his research with new technology and has nearly always proven to be ahead of the game.
> 
> I would try an electric car or motorhome - if I could ever afford one! And there's the rub...


I almost went for the I pace Marie as I'm getting rid of an F Pace they are smart. Just felt this was for me a little more.
Like your sisters fella u mentioned I've been a 4 x 4 guy for years so we shall see.

But I'm looking forward to going to bed and waking up with a full tank after plugging in. Only time will tell so let's see.


----------



## 2cv

Unexpected problem buying second hand Tesla.


----------



## izwozral

Robmac said:


> Interesting article here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Amazon Is Not Earth’s Lungs
> 
> 
> Humans could burn every living thing on the planet and still not dent its oxygen supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com



Interesting article Rob, vertainly squashes some of


landoboguy said:


> Went for the models S Asterix. P90d. It's bad news on take off in ludicrous mode... Seriously. But the real reason is I was looking at another guzzler and thought if I worked out the fuel plus the almost 500 per year saving on road  tax congestion charges etc it's actually a good buy. Then the resale value as they hold OK it just made sense.
> 
> Got to have the charger installed at the house with the olev grant Monday. It's early days but I can't help thinking we won't own another fossil fuel motor again. 2 people at my works are collecting electric cars in the next month 2.one is a leaf and one's the jag I pace.



Does it have the supercharged enabled mode? 0-60 in 2.5 seconds is pants changingly fast. If money was no object it would be a Tesla for me too, I love the styling, the speed and the price is a lot less than some super fast sports car.
A four year old, 39k on clock, supercharged Tesla currently on Ebay for £50k. Now, what's all this crowd funding malarkey about?


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> A simple question. IF you are so concerned for your children and grand children why are you still running a diesel engine. Does your conscience hurt every time you turn the key knowing you are further destroying the planet for them.



Like all parents and grandparents I am always concerned for my children and my grandchildren, I find it strange that you highlighted the word if in that sentence. You mention that I use a Diesel engine in my Motorhome, like Just about everyone else on here I do so because presently nothing else is available, but if at some point in the future electric Motorhomes become viable and available within my budget, I would buy one. But at my age I doubt if that will be possible. But I am very much considering an electric car in 2021.
You could have mentioned turning on my gas central heating, eating red meat, buying hardwood furniture, use of plastics everyday, flying abroad, taking a bus or train, over use of electricity, extending the worlds population by having these children in the first place, the list goes on and on.
I am not 100% sure about global warming, but it seems you are.
For me the risks are to great to simply dismiss and ignore, or to become paranoid about the intentions of others.


----------



## Tonybvi

What you will really enjoy are the over the air updates - typically every 2 to 4 weeks.  These can completely change things on the car (some for the better, some for the worse!), but it’s always exciting.


----------



## landoboguy

izwozral said:


> Interesting article Rob, vertainly squashes some of
> 
> 
> Does it have the supercharged enabled mode? 0-60 in 2.5 seconds is pants changingly fast. If money was no object it would be a Tesla for me too, I love the styling, the speed and the price is a lot less than some super fast sports car.
> A four year old, 39k on clock, supercharged Tesla currently on Ebay for £50k. Now, what's all this crowd funding malarkey about?


It's the 2.8 (maybe 2.6) version Ral. It's got 16k on the clock. I'm looking forward to giving it a go. I drive quite a bit but never more than 130 miles so just makes sense if the figures stack up.
They call the supercharged mode.... ludicrous mode. And it then asks do you really want to do this or call home for mommy


----------



## GreggBear

Tonybvi said:


> What you will really enjoy are the over the air updates - typically every 2 to 4 weeks.  These can completely change things on the car (some for the better, some for the worse!), but it’s always exciting.






Wouldn't want anyone able to access my car's brain remotely,  see earlier post! Technology gone too far if you ask me. Some folk seem hell bent on tech just for the sake of it. What if remote updates change some setting mid journey? When someone is injured or worse, they will say sorry & re jig things again, but that will be no consolation to the injured party....


----------



## landoboguy

GreggBear said:


> Wouldn't want anyone able to access my car's brain remotely,  see earlier post! Technology gone too far if you ask me. Some folk seem hell bent on tech just for the sake of it. What if remote updates change some setting mid journey? When someone is injured or worse, they will say sorry & re jig things again, but that will be no consolation to the injured party....


I see your point but Telematics can be changed by plugging in laptops and cables when going to a garage now ordinary. No real difference except you don't have to trot to a garage. Updates can't be done mid journey and most have to be accepted by driver. The car is unable to be used during those ones... Just like being at a garage but its in your drive.
Big brothers watching but that's the way its going.
Your phone... Pc... TV... Fridge... Stereo.. Sat nav... Mifi... In fact most WiFi enabled products.

The only thing that pricked my ears up is that every journey in every tesla in the world can be picked up by the 8 cameras and lidar systems plus sat nav and fed back to them to improve the autopilot feature. So basically they can know where you have been I think.
Taxi to the game now for me in future


----------



## trevskoda

They cannot fiddle with early models and its about all i could afford.


----------



## mariesnowgoose

Picked up a hire car the other day offered by the OP's insurance after Neil's prang last week with ours while they sort things out.

It's something called a Vauxhall Grandland X ?

Anyway, it's the most modern car I've ever driven to date and also the most boring to drive by a long chalk.
An electric push-button hand brake?! Plus all the other stuff too numerous to mention. Takes all the mechanical fun and skill out of driving, imho.

I can see it would be absolutely fantastic for anyone disabled, especially if it had an automatic gear box, but me - well I like to feel the bends and the bumps in the road and decide which gear I want to be in when I want to be in it!!!
 

Also have a great distrust of things electronic with too many computerised chips.

Said it before elsewhere, but I'm someone who likes a good old fashioned wind-up vehicle window and things that can be fixed at the side of the road if they break down. Now I'm not objecting wholesale to progressive technology, but I really resent this wholesale move towards Big Brother. Not a luddite, far from it, but I do like to to try and look at everything with a bit of balance.

That's me tea break over, back to potting up outside - its a gorgeous day here just now!


----------



## trevskoda

Yep my new to me proton has electric windows which i dislike along with magic engine control box, i also detest carpets in cars as they get wet and stink, rubber mats were best over bare floor so you could keep an eye out for corrosion,cloth seats is a pet hate to and first thing folks do is buy covers for them,is it just me who likes a hose down car rather than all the posh crap they put in them,after all its only a tool to transport you and things from point a to point b.


----------



## Robmac

trevskoda said:


> They cannot fiddle with early models and its about all i could afford.View attachment 76323



If you can afford one of those now Trev, I wouldn't mind being a quid behind you!


----------



## Nabsim

The Grandland is marginally better than the Crossland Marie but both of them are horrible. We ended up getting a Mokka X as Caz didn't want another Astra. Beyond doubt the best car I have had in the last 10 years was the 2.0 Astra GTX, like a track day car on the road. I rarely drive the car any more much preferring the van but Caz likes it. I quite liked the Dirty Rascal that Paddy McGuiness came up with though lol


----------



## trevskoda

One of my ex trainees is head of workshops at vauxhall and told me to stay well clear as bad built brakes and soft engines,lot of biz men use them here as fleet cars cheap as chips or were.
Police and all other services use Skoda along with taxi men.
I think i read that they are building the UP electric & VW  soon to be launched,all down to price.


----------



## colinm

mariesnowgoose said:


> Said it before elsewhere, but I'm someone who likes a good old fashioned wind-up vehicle window and things that can be fixed at the side of the road if they break down.



Those where the good old days, when cars where forever breaking down.


----------



## Nabsim

trevskoda said:


> One of my ex trainees is head of workshops at vauxhall and told me to stay well clear as bad built brakes and soft engines,lot of biz men use them here as fleet cars cheap as chips or were.
> Police and all other services use Skoda along with taxi men.
> I think i read that they are building the UP electric & VW  soon to be launched,all down to price.


they already replaced engine\transmission in my new car Trev, not done 3500miles yet. if I had known they were made in Korea I would probably have picked the Hyundai hybrid instead


----------



## Tonybvi

GreggBear said:


> Wouldn't want anyone able to access my car's brain remotely,  see earlier post! Technology gone too far if you ask me. Some folk seem hell bent on tech just for the sake of it. What if remote updates change some setting mid journey? When someone is injured or worse, they will say sorry & re jig things again, but that will be no consolation to the injured party....



With Tesla you get a notification that there is an update available for the car.  The notification tells you how long the update takes and you cannot drive the car while it is being updated.  It is up to you to select when you want the update to be installed.  I always do it while the car is parked up in the garage overnight.


----------



## Tonybvi

landoboguy said:


> I see your point but Telematics can be changed by plugging in laptops and cables when going to a garage now ordinary. No real difference except you don't have to trot to a garage. Updates can't be done mid journey and most have to be accepted by driver. The car is unable to be used during those ones... Just like being at a garage but its in your drive.
> Big brothers watching but that's the way its going.
> Your phone... Pc... TV... Fridge... Stereo.. Sat nav... Mifi... In fact most WiFi enabled products.
> 
> The only thing that pricked my ears up is that every journey in every tesla in the world can be picked up by the 8 cameras and lidar systems plus sat nav and fed back to them to improve the autopilot feature. So basically they can know where you have been I think.
> Taxi to the game now for me in future



Bizarrely enough the Tesla does not have lidar.  Dear Mr Musk has stated on many occasions that Tesla can have full self driving capability using just cameras and radar although quite how this can be done I have no idea.  My car just does not like things like roundabouts as there are rarely any decent road markings for the cameras to identify!  Not that I understand how any of this technology works so I could well be wrong!!


----------



## GreggBear

landoboguy said:


> I see your point but Telematics can be changed by plugging in laptops and cables when going to a garage now ordinary. No real difference except you don't have to trot to a garage. Updates can't be done mid journey and most have to be accepted by driver. The car is unable to be used during those ones... Just like being at a garage but its in your drive.
> Big brothers watching but that's the way its going.
> Your phone... Pc... TV... Fridge... Stereo.. Sat nav... Mifi... In fact most WiFi enabled products.
> 
> The only thing that pricked my ears up is that every journey in every tesla in the world can be picked up by the 8 cameras and lidar systems plus sat nav and fed back to them to improve the autopilot feature. So basically they can know where you have been I think.
> Taxi to the game now for me in future





Tonybvi said:


> With Tesla you get a notification that there is an update available for the car.  The notification tells you how long the update takes and you cannot drive the car while it is being updated.  It is up to you to select when you want the update to be installed.  I always do it while the car is parked up in the garage overnight.



I was referring to an earlier post, man buys 2nd hand Tesla with autopilot etc.
When he gets his car home he realises the features aren't working.
Dealer contacts Tesla & is told they had remotely removed the features as the 2nd hand buyer hadn't payed for the features!
Disgraceful carry on,  like you buying a used Ford mondeo then Ford turning up to reclaim all the optional extras because you didn't pay Ford for them!
Difference being you can throw Ford out of your yard, you can't stop Tesla remotely "stealing" your extras.


----------



## landoboguy

GreggBear said:


> I was referring to an earlier post, man buys 2nd hand Tesla with autopilot etc.
> When he gets his car home he realises the features aren't working.
> Dealer contacts Tesla & is told they had remotely removed the features as the 2nd hand buyer hadn't payed for the features!
> Disgraceful carry on,  like you buying a used Ford mondeo then Ford turning up to reclaim all the optional extras because you didn't pay Ford for them!
> Difference being you can throw Ford out of your yard, you can't stop Tesla remotely "stealing" your extras.


Customer should have made sure previous owner had paid for all extras. Obvs done it to bump the price up.

There are many stories of whole cars being repossessed and new 'owner' being left without a petrol/diesel vehicle as it was a clone and they hadnt checked when buying so lost every penny


----------



## GreggBear

Sounds like original owner had paid for extras but Tesla wanted new owner to pay for them too...
Point of my thread was to highlight the fact that this was done remotely without the new owners knowledge or consent. Surely you can agree that that kind of technology is not healthy.....


----------



## davef

Unlikely any of the current government will be around in 2035 - this announcement is virtue signalling at its most destructive. I read recently that building the land based wind turbines required the felling of 3.9 million trees in Scotland. Is that being green?
NASA has admitted that the increase in CO2 has resulted in the extra greening of the Earth equivalent to an area twice the size of America over the past 35 years. See link  https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
It cannot be argued against - the actual evidence shows producing CO2 greens the Earth.
The belief in man made climate change is just another pseudo religion about the end of the world due to our sinful lives - just another ridiculous death cult.
Hopefully politicians will soon jump off the band wagon before the UK is utterly destroyed by the madness.


----------



## Fisherman

davef said:


> Unlikely any of the current government will be around in 2035 - this announcement is virtue signalling at its most destructive. I read recently that building the land based wind turbines required the felling of 3.9 million trees in Scotland. Is that being green?
> NASA has admitted that the increase in CO2 has resulted in the extra greening of the Earth equivalent to an area twice the size of America over the past 35 years. See link  https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
> It cannot be argued against - the actual evidence shows producing CO2 greens the Earth.
> The belief in man made climate change is just another pseudo religion about the end of the world due to our sinful lives - just another ridiculous death cult.
> Hopefully politicians will soon jump off the band wagon before the UK is utterly destroyed by the madness.



Sorry what other government/ United Nations sponsored pseudo religious death cults are you talking about. Apart from war and its weapons, I am struggling to find any, perhaps you could name a few of them for us.
Also are you 100% sure that this global warming is just a myth that won’t happen if we keep doing what we are doing now. 
As for greening the earth and politicians jumping of a bandwagon before we are utterly destroyed. Well possibly by staying on the bus they may prevent us all being utterly destroyed.
Whats the worse that can happen to us if we are wrong about global warming.
Well we finish up with a cleaner planet.
If we do nothing as you wish and you are wrong, well god help us all.


----------



## Tonybvi

GreggBear said:


> Sounds like original owner had paid for extras but Tesla wanted new owner to pay for them too...
> Point of my thread was to highlight the fact that this was done remotely without the new owners knowledge or consent. Surely you can agree that that kind of technology is not healthy.....



Yep I agree that this shouldn’t have been done like this.  It seems that Tesla added the extras as a freebie to boost sales way back when, then has no record of it.  I am convinced that everything will be corrected in the end and that Tesla is a fairly poor company to deal with when resolving problems.  However I still feel that over the air updates is the way forward.   
My car, although only 4 months old, has improved a fair bit.  Those folk who bought the original Tesla’s have seen their vehicles brought as up to date as they can be with their existing hardware so effectively their vehicles are as modern as mine.
My final thought is that as this thread was originally about the demise of ICE perhaps I am taking up too much of it talking about Tesla.  I will leave you kind folk to get back on topic!


----------



## landoboguy

GreggBear said:


> Point of my thread was to highlight the fact that this was done remotely without the new owners knowledge or consent. Surely you can agree that that kind of technology is not healthy.....


Yes if thats true Greg I certainly agree


----------



## landoboguy

davef said:


> U
> NASA has admitted that the increase in CO2 has resulted in the extra greening of the Earth equivalent to an area twice the size of America over the past 35 years. See link  https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth


Its not just c02 though, its lots of far worse gasses.
Heres a test for you, create your own mini atmosphere in your own garage, seal all the windows doors etc,fill it with lovely oxygen, then chuck in a farting cow, a mini factory producing sulphur, and then start your car and see how long you can stay in there.

Cmon man, be real, do you agree with all the smog shutting down cities, would you wild camp there


----------



## Fisherman

landoboguy said:


> Its not just c02 though, its lots of far worse gasses.
> Heres a test for you, create your own mini atmosphere in your own garage, seal all the windows doors etc,fill it with lovely oxygen, then chuck in a farting cow, a mini factory producing sulphur, and then start your car and see how long you can stay in there.
> 
> Cmon man, be real, do you agree with all the smog shutting down cities, would you wild camp there



CO2 poses a risk to the whole planet.
The other stuff is more localised within cities and large towns.
Hence restrictions being placed on petrol and diesel vehicles by many towns and cities.


----------



## korky

davef said:


> Unlikely any of the current government will be around in 2035 - this announcement is virtue signalling at its most destructive. I read recently that building the land based wind turbines required the felling of 3.9 million trees in Scotland. Is that being green?
> NASA has admitted that the increase in CO2 has resulted in the extra greening of the Earth equivalent to an area twice the size of America over the past 35 years. See link  https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
> It cannot be argued against - the actual evidence shows producing CO2 greens the Earth.
> The belief in man made climate change is just another pseudo religion about the end of the world due to our sinful lives - just another ridiculous death cult.
> Hopefully politicians will soon jump off the band wagon before the UK is utterly destroyed by the madness.


Like I said,I love a good laugh me.


----------



## Owlhouse

Fisherman said:


> Alarmist scientists ? you think they want global warming. Nobody wants global warming. Well almost nobody.
> Everyone claims the BBC are biased, but what have they got to do with global warming.
> All they do is report what is given to them. they don't make scientific judgments.
> Global temperatures have increased over the last 20 years.
> But I suppose you will put that down to adjustment to the figures, and or wrongly and bias reporting from the BBC.


The world has been warming quite nicely since the end of the little ice age. I think I would rather have a couple of degrees up from that period. Even the IPCC admit (reluctantly) that there is a pause in the warming over the last twenty years and yet China and India have been pumping out lots more Co2. Yes again the claim is warming- but only in the models with their adjusted data. 
The BBC bias - they steadfastly refuse to allow any skeptic views at all. Yes they do make scientific judgments. Their reporters are continually peddling climate change yet are proven wrong time and time again. No retractions or explanation; just hiding heads in sand. 
I used to think global warming was a problem until I looked properly at what claims were being made. The more I delved the more it was obvious that a lot of misinformation was being peddled.


----------



## barge1914

trevskoda said:


> Wave oe estury power will make lots of lecy twice a day with the tide.


Yes, surprised more effort hasn’t been put into this, with our coastline and tide patterns there’s always somewhere where the tide is rising or falling. And unlike sun and wind it never takes a day off.


----------



## trevskoda

colinmd said:


> Those where the good old days, when cars where forever breaking down.


None of mine broke,you must have been driving ford or bmc as that was common,not for Skoda.


----------



## barge1914

landoboguy said:


> I almost went for the I pace Marie as I'm getting rid of an F Pace they are smart. Just felt this was for me a little more.
> Like your sisters fella u mentioned I've been a 4 x 4 guy for years so we shall see.
> 
> But I'm looking forward to going to bed and waking up with a full tank after plugging in. Only time will tell so let's see.


Yes, for the motoring our little 4x4 diesel panda (bought just before they became a dirty word) does nowadays electric would be ideal. Sadly with less than 10000 on the clock in 6 years, and our general state of antiquity, I really can’t justify the investment...we’d be pushing up the daisies before we broke even. Besides, I’ve yet to see a 4x4 electric car that would get up our road when it snows.


----------



## Fisherman

Owlhouse said:


> The world has been warming quite nicely since the end of the little ice age. I think I would rather have a couple of degrees up from that period. Even the IPCC admit (reluctantly) that there is a pause in the warming over the last twenty years and yet China and India have been pumping out lots more Co2. Yes again the claim is warming- but only in the models with their adjusted data.
> The BBC bias - they steadfastly refuse to allow any skeptic views at all. Yes they do make scientific judgments. Their reporters are continually peddling climate change yet are proven wrong time and time again. No retractions or explanation; just hiding heads in sand.
> I used to think global warming was a problem until I looked properly at what claims were being made. The more I delved the more it was obvious that a lot of misinformation was being peddled.


----------



## trevskoda

The world was a lot hotter many moons back.


----------



## 2cv

trevskoda said:


> The world was a lot hotter many moons back.View attachment 76333



And undoubtedly it will be again.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Like all parents and grandparents I am always concerned for my children and my grandchildren, I find it strange that you highlighted the word if in that sentence. You mention that I use a Diesel engine in my Motorhome, like Just about everyone else on here I do so because presently nothing else is available, but if at some point in the future electric Motorhomes become viable and available within my budget, I would buy one. But at my age I doubt if that will be possible. But I am very much considering an electric car in 2021.
> You could have mentioned turning on my gas central heating, eating red meat, buying hardwood furniture, use of plastics everyday, flying abroad, taking a bus or train, over use of electricity, extending the worlds population by having these children in the first place, the list goes on and on.
> I am not 100% sure about global warming, but it seems you are.
> For me the risks are to great to simply dismiss and ignore, or to become paranoid about the intentions of others.


 t
I gave you my thoughts on children and grand children in post # 91.
You are not forced to have a diesel MH,  petrols are available just a more limited choice. There are plenty of American RVs with petrol engines.
You are right i am 100% sure global warming is happening at this time.  Nowhere have i said it isn't, but what i don't believe is EVs are the answer. Nobody has come up with a answer as far as been green about the supply and recycling/disposal of the batteries. There are approx 1 billion cars on the roads of the world should there be only a 25% take up of EVs  that's  still 250,000,000 batteries to make, recycle dispose of.  
Most car batteries are made in China, South Korea and Japan, where the use of carbon in electricity production is relatively high. An EEA report found that in China, 35-50% of total EV manufacturing emissions arise from electricity consumption for battery production. These emissions are up to three times higher than in the United States.
Volkswagen introduced a scheme in 2019 which it believes will see 97% of all the raw materials used in new EV batteries reused by 2040. 
The cynic in me tells me we can all believe what VW tells us.   and thats another 20 years to fully implement and just one manufacturer. 
I also believe global warming is a extremely convenient excuse to extract money from the public by using fear for the future. As in LEZs  in cities whilst still expanding airports at the same time. If govs were really trying to reduce carbon footprints they would be also wanting to reduce air traffic not increase it and that is only one example of many should anyone choose to look. That's why i say it is money/business driven and not just a matter of saving the planet.


----------



## runnach

Tesla recharging a new owner surprised me at first but upon reflection mainstream manufacturers charge for software flashes when required also subscription needs to be paid to keep trackers active so little difference .

The idea of upgrading software without visiting a dealer does on face value seem attractive.

In my motor trade days , I worjked for Volvo truck and bus ....2002 time they were developing a satellite system which tracked a truck and made various power available eg, steady away on the m1 zap 380 bhp....same truck pulling towards Glasgow dial in 500 bhp...the idea being it would save fuel, with the proposed increase in satellites don’t be surprised if we see similar technology introduced


----------



## mark61

Of course it's about money. But money is just a more acceptable word for control.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> t
> I gave you my thoughts on children and grand children in post # 91.
> You are not forced to have a diesel MH,  petrols are available just a more limited choice. There are plenty of American RVs with petrol engines.
> You are right i am 100% sure global warming is happening at this time.  Nowhere have i said it isn't, but what i don't believe is EVs are the answer. Nobody has come up with a answer as far as been green about the supply and recycling/disposal of the batteries. There are approx 1 billion cars on the roads of the world should there be only a 25% take up of EVs  that's  still 250,000,000 batteries to make, recycle dispose of.
> Most car batteries are made in China, South Korea and Japan, where the use of carbon in electricity production is relatively high. An EEA report found that in China, 35-50% of total EV manufacturing emissions arise from electricity consumption for battery production. These emissions are up to three times higher than in the United States.
> Volkswagen introduced a scheme in 2019 which it believes will see 97% of all the raw materials used in new EV batteries reused by 2040.
> The cynic in me tells me we can all believe what VW tells us.   and thats another 20 years to fully implement and just one manufacturer.
> I also believe global warming is a extremely convenient excuse to extract money from the public by using fear for the future. As in LEZs  in cities whilst still expanding airports at the same time. If govs were really trying to reduce carbon footprints they would be also wanting to reduce air traffic not increase it and that is only one example of many should anyone choose to look. That's why i say it is money/business driven and not just a matter of saving the planet.



Petrol produces 25-30% more CO2 than diesel. Why would I buy a petrol Motorhome. That’s why not so long ago we were told to buy diesel. And also were did I say I was forced to do anything. I have not been forced to do anything.


----------



## runnach

My recollection of fuel changes was different namely a lot of cars were running on leaded fuel , the lead content also worked as a last lubricant for valves we were told it was bad as the particles it emitted were bad for our health and diesel was cleaner emitting hydro carbons.

Zoom forward and we were told the lead in furel attaches itself to hydro carbons in the atmosphere so made it as bad as the lead albeit the innocent party 

Once cat converters were common and cars could run on unleaded the advent of egr valves etc the pendulum swing back in the favour of unleaded so did the fuel prices to negate the better economy of diesels 


The Aa and RAC at the time were suggesting the majority of breakdowns were ignition related the diesel system simpler held a lot of appeal until they started buggering about with dpf filters.

At the time motorists have always been persecuted the real offenders the coal fired power stations and use of CFC in aerosols and refrigeration 

I think there is enough evidence to suggest global warming is an issue, but remain unconvinced in tackling it we are approaching the subject in the most effective way .sadly whilst ever governments are puppets of commerce vested interests and money making becomes skewed. Curtailing pollution in China India and other parts of south east Asia and to an extent developing Africa may well seem a great idea , resistance will always remain with emerging economies and an understandable desire to match wealthy economies like our own


----------



## Fisherman

Owlhouse said:


> The world has been warming quite nicely since the end of the little ice age. I think I would rather have a couple of degrees up from that period. Even the IPCC admit (reluctantly) that there is a pause in the warming over the last twenty years and yet China and India have been pumping out lots more Co2. Yes again the claim is warming- but only in the models with their adjusted data.
> The BBC bias - they steadfastly refuse to allow any skeptic views at all. Yes they do make scientific judgments. Their reporters are continually peddling climate change yet are proven wrong time and time again. No retractions or explanation; just hiding heads in sand.
> I used to think global warming was a problem until I looked properly at what claims were being made. The more I delved the more it was obvious that a lot of misinformation was being peddled.



First and foremost the world has not been warming up since the end of the last ice age around 12000 years ago. There have been many little ice ages during that period the last one taking place in the 19th century. But the period between 1300 and 1870 Europe suffered colder winters than were normal. During the last little ice age for three winters the Thames froze solid and people were ice skating on it. During the 17th century the English Channel froze. These ice ages were the result of reduced sun spot activity from the sun. And ironically we are overdue another major ice age. However if another ice occurs most of the the uk will be covered in ice up to a depth of around 3-400 m. So global warming woukd no longer be a issue. One bonus would be easier access to Europe as the English Chanel would no longer exist, and you could drive to France  

Here we go again BBC bias, so owlhouse are you stating that the BBC are the only media outlet to support the the evidence around global warming. I cannot think of one tv Chanel or national newspaper who support your views. So why blame just the BBC. The evidence is so overwhelming that to deny global warming is happening is like questioning who won the premier league last season.

As for you delving into the claims about global warming and then deciding it’s all a rouge riddled with misinformation, well if that’s your opinion fair enough.
But remember if you are wrong we are all screwed, whereas if we take measures to prevent this that prove to have been unnecessary then we end up with a cleaner planet. I know which ending I prefer.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Petrol produces 25-30% more CO2 than diesel. Why would I buy a petrol Motorhome. That’s why not so long ago we were told to buy diesel. And also were did I say I was forced to do anything. I have not been forced to do anything.



OK forced a wrong choice of words.

You said " I do so because presently nothing else is available, ". That is plainly wrong. You could buy a petrol but run on much friendlier LPG. Even if its not very convenient and you couldn't run it all the time overall it might work out better than diesel after all we are saving the planet for our offspring so we should put up with a little inconvenience for their sake.
*LPG* produces 33% less *CO2 emissions* than petrol and 45% less *CO2* than *diesel*. *LPG* vehicles produce up to 82% less Nitrogen Oxide pollutants than petrol and 99% better than *diesel* ! 63% less *Carbon* Monoxide. 40% less Hydrocarbons than petrol and 70% less than *diesel*.

Which is more polluting petrol or diesel?
If we are to go by the current technology , *diesel* engines are *more polluting* than *petrol* engines(with catalytic converters). ... *Diesel* fuel contains *more* energy per litre than *petrol* and coupled with the fact that *diesel* engines are *more* efficient than *petrol* engines, *diesel* cars are *more* efficient to run.
There is a big difference between efficient and polluting .
Believe what you will.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> OK forced a wrong choice of words.
> 
> You said " I do so because presently nothing else is available, ". That is plainly wrong. You could buy a petrol but run on much friendlier LPG. Even if its not very convenient and you couldn't run it all the time overall it might work out better than diesel after all we are saving the planet for our offspring so we should put up with a little inconvenience for their sake.
> *LPG* produces 33% less *CO2 emissions* than petrol and 45% less *CO2* than *diesel*. *LPG* vehicles produce up to 82% less Nitrogen Oxide pollutants than petrol and 99% better than *diesel* ! 63% less *Carbon* Monoxide. 40% less Hydrocarbons than petrol and 70% less than *diesel*.



Sorry but I have a Motorhome not a camper van.
I have quickly scoured through this months MMM and I cannot see even one petrol or LPG powered Motorhome. Every Motorhome is powered by various Diesel engines. Also when choosing a Motorhome like most our priority is the habitation area and not the engine. I would have preferred a Mercedes engine in my current Motorhome, but the choice was limited to fiat Ducatto. So even if you can show me a single petrol or lpg powered Motorhome, I doubt if it would meet our needs.


----------



## trevskoda

channa said:


> Tesla recharging a new owner surprised me at first but upon reflection mainstream manufacturers charge for software flashes when required also subscription needs to be paid to keep trackers active so little difference .
> 
> The idea of upgrading software without visiting a dealer does on face value seem attractive.
> 
> In my motor trade days , I worjked for Volvo truck and bus ....2002 time they were developing a satellite system which tracked a truck and made various power available eg, steady away on the m1 zap 380 bhp....same truck pulling towards Glasgow dial in 500 bhp...the idea being it would save fuel, with the proposed increase in satellites don’t be surprised if we see similar technology introduced


 Woriked,listening to ABBA again.


----------



## trevskoda

Fazerloz said:


> t
> 
> petrols are available just a more limited choice. There are plenty of American RVs with petrol engines.
> Not so long ago they told us petrol was burning a big hole in the ozone,did quickfit go up and patch it.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Sorry but I have a Motorhome not a camper van.
> I have just quickly scoured through this months MMM and I cannot see even one petrol or LPG powered Motorhome. Every Motorhome is powered by various Diesel engines. Also when choosing a Motorhome like most our priority is the habitation area and not the engine. I would have preferred a Mercedes engine in my current Motorhome, but the choice was limited to fiat Ducatto. So even if you can show me a single petrol or lpg powered Motorhome, I doubt if it would meet our needs.



How many do you want. I am sure some of these are petrol/LPG. and might have a layout you could put up with.




__





						rv | eBay
					

Find great deals on eBay for rv. Shop with confidence.



					www.ebay.co.uk


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> How many do you want. I am sure some of these are petrol/LPG. and might have a layout you could put up with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rv | eBay
> 
> 
> Find great deals on eBay for rv. Shop with confidence.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ebay.co.uk



I have a 6m Motorhome not a small house on wheels giving 4mpg.
These American RVs are far more harmful to our planet than what I am driving.
Also I don’t fancy driving something that size on our roads.
You are proposing that I drive a vehicle that returns only 4mpg against the one I currently have producing 30mpg. How is this better for the planet.
I got the figure of 4mpg from a FloridIan who owned one.


----------



## trevskoda

The truth is we cannot find a easy fix for the problem and im 100% sure the gov dont give a monkeys as long as there filling the pockets of commerce.


----------



## Fisherman

trevskoda said:


> The truth is we cannot find a easy fix for the problem and im 100% sure the gov dont give a monkeys as long as there filling the pockets of commerce.



Off course it’s not easy Trev, it may not even prove to be possible.
Governments have been dragging their heels on this for decades.
But things are starting to change.
But we may be to late, time will tell.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> I have a 6m Motorhome not a small house on wheels giving 4mpg.
> These American RVs are far more harmful to our planet than what I am driving.
> Also I don’t fancy driving something that size on our roads.
> You are proposing that I drive a vehicle that returns only 4mpg against the one I currently have producing 30mpg. How is this better for the planet.
> I got the figure of 4mpg from a FloridIan who owned one.


You seem to have spent plenty of time researching the destruction of the planet, do a little more on what is actually available to you MH wise. They are not all coach size and 4mpg.
You can get them based on merc, ford, chevy vans with petrol engines. You are not looking hard enough.


----------



## landoboguy

Sorted, But dont use it in these winds


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> You seem to have spent plenty of time researching the destruction of the planet, do a little more on what is actually available to you MH wise. They are not all coach size and 4mpg.
> You can get them based on merc, ford, chevy vans with petrol engines. You are not looking hard enough.



I spent two years researching before buying my current Motorhome.
I never saw one petrol, not one.
But if I did, why buy petrol when it produces more CO2 than diesel.
Sorry Fazerloz but petrol is not an option when trying to prevent global warming.


----------



## Fisherman

landoboguy said:


> Sorted, But dont use it in these winds
> View attachment 76341



That might be us soon.
I bet the government will charge a pedal tax if it comes to fruition.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> That might be us soon.
> I bet the government will charge a pedal tax if it comes to fruition.


That you can bet your life on.


----------



## Fisherman

I don’t support what governments are doing right now, no way.
Our government has removed all of the assistance offered to those who fit solar panels to their homes. They are charging punitive taxes on the cleanest diesels ever produced (6d) whilst keeping lower road tax on older more polluting and and cars. They are reducing assistance to people buying electric vehicles. Much of what they are doing makes no sense.
Currently the uk government receives around £45 billion from motorists.
They will have to replace this with other forms of tax.
Also this is a planetary issue, we need a worldwide joined up response, not one country doing one thing whilst another is removing its Forrests ate their rate of a football pitch every five minutes. In the last five years an area the size of Scotland has been removed from the Amazon Forrest. Utter madness when we are being asked to make sacrifices in our way of life.


----------



## campervanannie

channa said:


> That is the absolute commitment we need by government to shift mindsets.
> 
> Electric ranges etc are improving alternative sustainable fuels less damaging to the environment the technology is gaining traction .
> 
> A timely point to remind ourselves , there was a man who failed close to a thousand times developing a product , when asked how it felt to fail a thousand times , he shrugged and rephrased I haven’t failed simply discovered a thousand ways that didn’t work (that’s mindset) he eventually got it right and I bet most have used one today...Thomas Edison’s lightbulb


----------



## Fisherman

trevskoda said:


> The world was a lot hotter many moons back.View attachment 76333



Is this a photo taken in Australia recently Trev


----------



## ricc

In real life usage a 3.5tonne diesel vehicle will do low 30s mpg same class of vehicle with petrol engine will be in the low teens.  It will use double the amount of fuel nobody can seriously argue with that.  I've yet to see anyone claiming that petrol is half as bad for the planet as diesel gallon for gallon.

Claims that one fuel is less polluting than another are meaningless unless you specify which pollutant you are measuring and give full details of how the tests were done....


I've always gone with the gut feeling that the fuel you use least of is in real life the least polluting overall, and for my motor vehicle usage that is diesel.


----------



## Fisherman

ricc said:


> In real life usage a 3.5tonne diesel vehicle will do low 30s mpg same class of vehicle with petrol engine will be in the low teens.  It will use double the amount of fuel nobody can seriously argue with that.  I've yet to see anyone claiming that petrol is half as bad for the planet as diesel gallon for gallon.
> 
> Claims that one fuel is less polluting than another are meaningless unless you specify which pollutant you are measuring and give full details of how the tests were done....
> 
> 
> I've always gone with the gut feeling that the fuel you use least of is in real life the least polluting overall, and for my motor vehicle usage that is diesel.



Ricc with Regards to CO2 clearly petrol produces more than Diesel.
This is a generic fact, not based on individual tests for specific vehicles.
Its generally accepted that due to Diesel engines producing more torque than petrol engines the difference increases with the weight of the vehicle. Regarding 3.5 t Motorhomes this difference can be as much as 40%. You yourself correctly showed the large disparity between petrol and diesel mpg on a 3.5 t chassis.


----------



## trevskoda

Run your oil burner on rapseed/sunflower oil.


----------



## colinm

campervanannie said:


> View attachment 76342



That's not a lithium mine, it's a copper mine.


----------



## campervanannie

colinmd said:


> That's not a lithium mine, it's a copper mine.


Well I suppose google is wrong and you are right.  at the end of the day it’s mineral mining for batteries.


----------



## landoboguy

Rather than oil mining for cars  or copper for wires, or wood for tables, or man made plastics to kill the dolphins.

Everything has to come from somewhere. hundreds of millions of years ago this planet was just rock, and water, Thats it nothing else.

 I find it fascinating that the fact Im even typing on this plastic keyboard or using a car, telephone, wearing clothes blah blah, when in reality our only ingredients started with rock, and water, then came organisms, plants,trees, iron from the rocks etc to where we are today. just amazes me.

But yes either way we are stripping the earth, whether thats a good thing or not is debatelable


----------



## Fisherman

landoboguy said:


> Rather than oil mining for cars  or copper for wires, or wood for tables, or man made plastics to kill the dolphins.
> 
> Everything has to come from somewhere. hundreds of millions of years ago this planet was just rock, and water, Thats it nothing else.
> 
> I find it fascinating that the fact Im even typing on this plastic keyboard or using a car, telephone, wearing clothes blah blah, when in reality our only ingredients started with rock, and water, then came organisms, plants,trees, iron from the rocks etc to where we are today. just amazes me.
> 
> But yes either way we are stripping the earth, whether thats a good thing or not is debatelable



We will eventually have to strip other planets and the moon.
But we better not use diesel or we will create lunar or Martian warming


----------



## colinm

campervanannie said:


> Well I suppose google is wrong and you are right.  at the end of the day it’s mineral mining for batteries.



Try typing in, BHP’s Escondida copper mine in Chile, and you will see google agrees with me.


----------



## trevskoda

colinmd said:


> Try typing in, BHP’s Escondida copper mine in Chile, and you will see google agrees with me.


Dont beleave a word google spymaster says. switch to the duck.


----------



## 2cv

trevskoda said:


> Dont beleave a word google spymaster says. switch to the duck.



Duck says quack quack


----------



## colinm

trevskoda said:


> Dont beleave a word google spymaster says. switch to the duck.



Which returns the same results, the copper mine (copper is used for many things) was used as a fake comparison with shale/sand mining in Canada in a stupid attempt by climate deniers to make it seem Lithium mining was much worse than shale mining which is quite obviously not correct.
p.s. Twofaced Trudeau likes to promote Canada as environmentally friendly when the facts are they operate the worlds largest commercial operation in Alberta which is the worlds worst for environmental damage.


----------



## mark61

Is this a Lithium mine


----------



## 2cv

Interesting article on lithium supplies.


----------



## colinm

mark61 said:


> Is this a Lithium mine



That looks like the Greenbushes mine which is the largest Lithium mine in the world, which is dwarfed by many other types of mines.


----------



## campervanannie

mark61 said:


> Is this a Lithium mine


There are hundreds of picks they all say lithium or copper mines also google colbolt mines in the Congo most mined by children.


----------



## trevskoda

Its a grave yard for all old diesel campervans in 15 years time.


----------



## colinm

campervanannie said:


> There are hundreds of picks they all say lithium or copper mines also google colbolt mines in the Congo most mined by children.



As a species we are pretty adept at exploiting resources around the world.


----------



## Nabsim

Modern limestone quarries in the UK look similar to those mines although not as many levels to them, most things used are extracted from somewhere.

I was surprised recently to find that the big wind turbines are also a problem, I have always liked them and thought they were a great idea. https://www.energyvoice.com/otheren...be-recycled-so-theyre-piling-up-in-landfills/


----------



## colinm

Nabsim said:


> Modern limestone quarries in the UK look similar to those mines although not as many levels to them, most things used are extracted from somewhere.
> 
> I was surprised recently to find that the big wind turbines are also a problem, I have always liked them and thought they were a great idea. https://www.energyvoice.com/otheren...be-recycled-so-theyre-piling-up-in-landfills/


Billions of people trying to move 100s of billions of miles, keep themselves warm and enjoy the latest gadgets, is never going to be environmentally friendly.


----------



## Fazerloz




----------



## in h

izwozral said:


> "New *petrol* and *diesel* cars *banned* from *2035*. A *ban* on selling new *petrol* and *diesel* cars will be brought forward by five years to improve air quality, the prime minister will announce today. Boris Johnson will say that the sale of new combustion engine cars and vans will end in *2035* rather than 2040."
> 
> Don't panic, don't panic, no mention of MH's or vans or lorries.
> 
> That's alright then?


Also no mention of hydrogen or LPG powered internal combustion engines. They may take over where battery power won't do.


----------



## in h

colinmd said:


> Tax has a great affect, as witnessed by the shift to deisel when the gov brought in tax based on co2 output.


There was good reason to switch to diesel: much more efficient and they cause less climate change. However, diesels can put out some pollutants, and they do because car makers made cars to pass the spec, not to be clean in real-world conditions. 
That's because the specs were badly written, and because there are no NOX tests in MOTs because the equipment would cost too much.


----------



## in h

izwozral said:


> Interesting article Rob, vertainly squashes some of
> 
> 
> Does it have the supercharged enabled mode? 0-60 in 2.5 seconds is pants changingly fast. If money was no object it would be a Tesla for me too, I love the styling, the speed and the price is a lot less than some super fast sports car.
> A four year old, 39k on clock, supercharged Tesla currently on Ebay for £50k. Now, what's all this crowd funding malarkey about?


I think they are too bulky, too flashy, too unreliable, too expensive to insure, too difficult to get spares for and much too complicated. And very expensive. Something between a Leaf and a Tesla might suit. I wonder what Mercedes will offer?


----------



## 2cv

in h said:


> I think they are too bulky, too flashy, too unreliable, too expensive to insure, too difficult to get spares for and much too complicated. And very expensive. Something between a Leaf and a Tesla might suit.* I wonder what Mercedes will offer?*



Here you are.


----------



## trevskoda

Heres the job.


----------



## HurricaneSmith

259 miles quoted. 

I wonder if that's nearer 150 in the winter. That would be only 75 miles each way (approx). 
.


----------



## Nabsim

Well saw the new electric Porsche on tv last night and I wasn’t one. Only 4 recharging points in the U.K. may have been a problem had I a spare £120,000. Looked truly excellent though


----------



## davef

Nabsim said:


> Modern limestone quarries in the UK look similar to those mines although not as many levels to them, most things used are extracted from somewhere.
> 
> I was surprised recently to find that the big wind turbines are also a problem, I have always liked them and thought they were a great idea. https://www.energyvoice.com/otheren...be-recycled-so-theyre-piling-up-in-landfills/



It seems that the government thinks electric cars will mainly be powered by renewable carbon free wind turbines. Surprised there isn't more concern of the permanent damage to huge areas of the countryside as each turbine base requires over 1000 tons of reinforced concrete 6 to 30 ft deep. 1000 tons of concrete is hardly "carbon" free, and it's highly unlikely these bases will ever be removed - the cost will be astronomical. A photo here of an early, so smallish turbine base in construction  https://windfarmaction.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/concrete-turbine-base/


----------



## Fazerloz

https://imgur.com/a/izVdtw5


----------



## trevskoda

runnach said:


> Hmmmmmmmmm, no SLK??


99% of cars here go 7 ish miles to work or kids round the corner to school and a few miles to shops,electric is ok for that.
Portrush or newcastle in summer would be about the longest jurney done here at 50 ish miles there and same back.


----------



## Asterix

For me the biggest and best impact of electric cars will be the massive noise reduction,not only in urban areas but rural areas as well.


----------



## molly 2

Asterix said:


> For me the biggest and best impact of electric cars will be the massive noise reduction,not only in urban areas but rural areas as well.


The accident rate will increase as pedestrian and cycle's won't hear them coming.


----------



## HurricaneSmith

I read that EV manufacturers are researching fake sounds so that pedestrians will hear them coming. 

The examples they played sounded like something from the 60s Radiophonic Workshop. 
.


----------



## Robmac

HurricaneSmith said:


> I read that EV manufacturers are researching fake sounds so that pedestrians will hear them coming.
> 
> The examples they played sounded like something from the 60s Radiophonic Workshop.
> .


----------



## Asterix

molly 2 said:


> The accident rate will increase as pedestrian and cycle's won't hear them coming.



It will only affect people that are too thick to look before crossing,another plus for EVs methinks.


----------



## mark61

Half the people have some kind of earphones on and eyes focused on a device, these days.


----------



## landoboguy

Electric vehicles are mainly aimed at charging at home folk. This is where all manufacturers push their literature. Get home plug in wake up full tank. They have smaller emergency charge cables in the boot that will plug into std 13a sockets for when away if needed that only charge between 3 to 6 miles per hour plugged in. Then this hopes to get you to a fast charge point. 
The network of on the road chargers is growing but I still don't think for long term heavy miles is ideal just yet. Which then negates the cost savi g of fuel.


----------



## Nabsim

landoboguy said:


> Electric vehicles are mainly aimed at charging at home folk. This is where all manufacturers push their literature. Get home plug in wake up full tank. They have smaller emergency charge cables in the boot that will plug into std 13a sockets for when away if needed that only charge between 3 to 6 miles per hour plugged in. Then this hopes to get you to a fast charge point.
> The network of on the road chargers is growing but I still don't think for long term heavy miles is ideal just yet. Which then negates the cost savi g of fuel.


Lots of folks can’t have a home charger though and that doesn’t seem to be taken into account. We have an old quarry workers cottage built on a hill, there is no drive or off-road space to park vehicles. If one was mounted outside the house there is no saying we would get that parking and what would stop anyone else using it.
Apart from houses like ours many people live in flats so again couldn’t have a charge station.


----------



## sparrks

davef said:


> It seems that the government thinks electric cars will mainly be powered by renewable carbon free wind turbines. Surprised there isn't more concern of the permanent damage to huge areas of the countryside as each turbine base requires over 1000 tons of reinforced concrete 6 to 30 ft deep. 1000 tons of concrete is hardly "carbon" free, and it's highly unlikely these bases will ever be removed - the cost will be astronomical. A photo here of an early, so smallish turbine base in construction  https://windfarmaction.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/concrete-turbine-base/


That depends if the cement used in the concrete is produced using green energy, say Hydro or Wind or even Nuclear have all got to be cleaner than Oil


----------



## trevskoda

Nabsim said:


> Lots of folks can’t have a home charger though and that doesn’t seem to be taken into account. We have an old quarry workers cottage built on a hill, there is no drive or off-road space to park vehicles. If one was mounted outside the house there is no saying we would get that parking and what would stop anyone else using it.
> Apart from houses like ours many people live in flats so again couldn’t have a charge station.


Work hard and buy a proper gents house.


----------



## mark61

trevskoda said:


> Work hard and buy a proper gents house.     View attachment 76399



You'd think they'd bung on a solar panel or two, if only to signal their virtue.


----------



## Owlhouse

Fisherman said:


> First and foremost the world has not been warming up since the end of the last ice age around 12000 years ago. There have been many little ice ages during that period the last one taking place in the 19th century. But the period between 1300 and 1870 Europe suffered colder winters than were normal. During the last little ice age for three winters the Thames froze solid and people were ice skating on it. During the 17th century the English Channel froze. These ice ages were the result of reduced sun spot activity from the sun. And ironically we are overdue another major ice age. However if another ice occurs most of the the uk will be covered in ice up to a depth of around 3-400 m. So global warming woukd no longer be a issue. One bonus would be easier access to Europe as the English Chanel would no longer exist, and you could drive to France
> 
> Here we go again BBC bias, so owlhouse are you stating that the BBC are the only media outlet to support the the evidence around global warming. I cannot think of one tv Chanel or national newspaper who support your views. So why blame just the BBC. The evidence is so overwhelming that to deny global warming is happening is like questioning who won the premier league last season.
> 
> As for you delving into the claims about global warming and then deciding it’s all a rouge riddled with misinformation, well if that’s your opinion fair enough.
> But remember if you are wrong we are all screwed, whereas if we take measures to prevent this that prove to have been unnecessary then we end up with a cleaner planet. I know which ending I prefer.


My comment was since the little ice age, meaning the last one and not the Ice Age. We have warmed a little since. You are correct about the Sun’s influence on the climate and there is a lot of evidence to indicate it is the main driver of it and not Co2. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour - clouds. Co2 = 0.4%, water vapour = 90%+. 
You are correct about the media, most indeed do support climate change but the BBC seem to ram it down our throats at any and every opportunity. My point about bias is that they will not allow any non climate change views to be reported. 
If I am wrong then the destruction of our economy and freedom for less than 1% of the world Co2 output means we have made virtually no difference.  If I am right then we will be saving £billions which can be spent on good causes like the NHS, police etc. (And hopefully less tax on my mojo) I am all for reducing pollution but don’t believe the hype around climate change.


----------



## davef

Owlhouse said:


> My comment was since the little ice age, meaning the last one and not the Ice Age. We have warmed a little since. You are correct about the Sun’s influence on the climate and there is a lot of evidence to indicate it is the main driver of it and not Co2. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour - clouds. Co2 = 0.4%, water vapour = 90%+.
> You are correct about the media, most indeed do support climate change but the BBC seem to ram it down our throats at any and every opportunity. My point about bias is that they will not allow any non climate change views to be reported.
> If I am wrong then the destruction of our economy and freedom for less than 1% of the world Co2 output means we have made virtually no difference.  If I am right then we will be saving £billions which can be spent on good causes like the NHS, police etc. (And hopefully less tax on my mojo) I am all for reducing pollution but don’t believe the hype around climate change.



The BBC's science correspondent is Roger Harribin who after an infamous meeting with activists from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth was persuaded  the science of Global Warming was settled so no sceptical views could be allowed. ( Of course science is never settled, and theories constantly challenged to find faults in them. If it is settled and unchallengable it is religious dogma.) His qualification for such arrogance in not allowing the contrary views  of thousands of scientists.....a degree in English literature!

A slight correction - the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm which is .04% ( not .4%) The idea of this tiny amount being able to significantly warm the earth is ridiculous. It is like adding a teaspoon of hot water to a cold bath and expecting it to heat the bath. Those thinking that we can reduce this amount should remember if it was halved, plants would stop growing - and all life would slowly die.


----------



## Fisherman

Owlhouse said:


> If I am wrong then the destruction of our economy and freedom for less than 1% of the world Co2 output means we have made virtually no difference.


If you are wrong civilisation may break down, Nuclear warfare may ensue, millions maybe even billions will die from starvation.
I do agree however that we are small fry with China contributing 29% and rising against our 1%. Our levels have fallen by 38% since 1990.


----------



## landoboguy

Nabsim said:


> Lots of folks can’t have a home charger though and that doesn’t seem to be taken into account. We have an old quarry workers cottage built on a hill, there is no drive or off-road space to park vehicles. If one was mounted outside the house there is no saying we would get that parking and what would stop anyone else using it.
> Apart from houses like ours many people live in flats so again couldn’t have a charge station.


Yes, my sister is the same, shes in a farmhouse and uses her motorhome connector (commando socket) to charge hers. She had similar issues when she needed petrol as shes miles away from the nearest petrol station too. Good point about the flats esp high rise.

As for anyone else using it, you trip the switch when not in use.
I look at it like this, back when petrol powered motors started to become common place, I suspect these same questions where asked, how do I get to fill it up, the only fuel stations are x y or z,

Ive just had some bad news about a friend of mine on the south coast and will be going to his funeral soon, Ill see how this all stacks up on a 300 mile run. (which will be rare for me)


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> First and foremost the world has not been warming up since the end of the last ice age around 12000 years ago. There have been many little ice ages during that period the last one taking place in the 19th century. But the period between 1300 and 1870 Europe suffered colder winters than were normal. During the last little ice age for three winters the Thames froze solid and people were ice skating on it. During the 17th century the English Channel froze. These ice ages were the result of reduced sun spot activity from the sun. And ironically we are overdue another major ice age. However if another ice occurs most of the the uk will be covered in ice up to a depth of around 3-400 m. So global warming woukd no longer be a issue. One bonus would be easier access to Europe as the English Chanel would no longer exist, and you could drive to France



Don't forget though only for 90 days in any 180 days.   I bet those that voted Brexit never took  a Ice age coming into consideration. I want another vote.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> Don't forget though only for 90 days in any 180 days.   I bet those that voted Brexit never took  a Ice age coming into consideration. I want another vote.



Johnson kept quiet about the ice age, but was upfront about £350 million a week for the NHS


----------



## sparrks

Fisherman said:


> If you are wrong civilisation may break down, Nuclear warfare may ensue, millions maybe even billions will die from starvation.
> *I do agree however that we are small fry with China contributing 29% and rising against our 1%. Our levels have fallen by 38% since 1990.*


It's also important to remember that those figures are of the man-made greenhouse gases rather than natural, the man-made element is around 3.87% 29 Gtons as opposed to the natural element which is estimated at 750 Gtons - so a smallish percentage shift of say 5% could mean curtains for us.


----------



## ricc

anyone got any reliable polar ice data,   bearing in mind that the uss skate managed to surface at the north pole in about 1960.   and again with another submarine some 2 years later


----------



## trevskoda

landoboguy said:


> Yes, my sister is the same, shes in a farmhouse and uses her motorhome connector (commando socket) to charge hers. She had similar issues when she needed petrol as shes miles away from the nearest petrol station too. Good point about the flats esp high rise.
> 
> As for anyone else using it, you trip the switch when not in use.
> I look at it like this, back when petrol powered motors started to become common place, I suspect these same questions where asked, how do I get to fill it up, the only fuel stations are x y or z,
> 
> Ive just had some bad news about a friend of mine on the south coast and will be going to his funeral soon, Ill see how this all stacks up on a 300 mile run. (which will be rare for me)


Commando ,does that mean charging with no underpants worn.


----------



## molly 2

After killing the IC engine  the next plan is to ban  gas heating in homes starting with new builds  in 20025


----------



## Asterix

95% of a lithium battery is recycled,it's been going on for over 20 years apparently...
Fully Charged podcast for those that are interested.


----------



## Fazerloz

runnach said:


> The Ban on Polluting Cars Is Brought Forward to 2035
> 
> 
> It was announced that the ban on new petrol and diesel cars would be brought forward in the UK including hybrid vehicles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.regit.cars



We are just cutting our throats to spite our faces. Our market just isn't big enough to bother or influence the key players in any way. Others can feel free to think differently if they like.


----------



## Tonybvi

landoboguy said:


> Yes, my sister is the same, shes in a farmhouse and uses her motorhome connector (commando socket) to charge hers. She had similar issues when she needed petrol as shes miles away from the nearest petrol station too. Good point about the flats esp high rise.
> 
> As for anyone else using it, you trip the switch when not in use.
> I look at it like this, back when petrol powered motors started to become common place, I suspect these same questions where asked, how do I get to fill it up, the only fuel stations are x y or z,
> 
> Ive just had some bad news about a friend of mine on the south coast and will be going to his funeral soon, Ill see how this all stacks up on a 300 mile run. (which will be rare for me)



Just did a 300 mile run today (Aberdeen to Preston) in the model X in the most appalling conditions - very strong winds and really heavy snow plus a closed M74.  Just to be safe I made 2 charging stops of 15 minutes each but probably could have got away with one.  Really pleased with how the Tesla coped.


----------



## sparrks

Tonybvi said:


> Just did a 300 mile run today (Aberdeen to Preston) in the model X in the most appalling conditions - very strong winds and really heavy snow plus a closed M74.  Just to be safe I made 2 charging stops of 15 minutes each but probably could have got away with one.  Really pleased with how the Tesla coped.


What kind of heater do EVs have? kind of curious - obviously electric but what kind?


----------



## 2cv

sparrks said:


> What kind of heater do EVs have? kind of curious - obviously electric but what kind?



27 pages of discussion on the Tesla forum, maybe the owners could rely on hot air


----------



## Tonybvi

sparrks said:


> What kind of heater do EVs have? kind of curious - obviously electric but what kind?


Don’t know to be honest but very effective!
All I know is that if I turn the car heaters on at home while the vehicle is plugged in they take around 2kw of power.


----------



## Tonybvi

Just looked it up - it’s a resistance heater, but I am no further forward in my knowledge than that!!!!


----------



## molly 2

Mmm


----------



## trevskoda

They should have used a petrol heater.


----------



## landoboguy

runnach said:


> I found during a business trip to Duns using our BMW i3 fleet car not long after the Beast from the East storm, and still very cold, miles dropped off when I applied heater, then I found the bum warmer (heated seats) used that instead of the norm as we know it. Less miles dropping off.
> 
> EV's are a learning curve.


Yeah I see this recommended on Tesla forums aswell.


----------



## trevskoda

My feet get cold not my Bum.


----------



## Nabsim

Seat heaters aren’t really a substitute though, extremities get cold. If I was spending as much as some of these cars I would expect a minimum of full climate. I get that in my much, much cheaper petrol car along with heated seats, heated steering wheel, mirrors etc. Etc.

I think including hybrid cars in the ban was a mistake, they weren’t in initially and manufacturers will have developed them as can be seen by some new hybrids. We are still building houses without solar and living walls/roofs being compulsory. Our city’s are way behind a lot of the USA ones. The governments is going for easy targets thinking motorists can’t fight back and in the U.K. they are probably right.
Let them ban everything except electric in London and see what happens, spineless politicians. We do need change but they are point scoring instead of doing things meaningful. Oh yes, it will probably costs money though, maybe why Joe Bloggs doesn’t want to lose their vehicle. Current ev’s are not the solution, electric motors driven by a fuel source or power cell are much better option. Does anyone expect the government to chose or do the right thing though?


----------



## caledonia

My two 2.5turbo diesels ain’t going anywhere. Need my Isuzu pickup because of my rural situation and my T5 camper does less harm than flights to Bendydorm and the likes.


----------



## Asterix

The government is now pushing the ban from 2035 to 2032...









						Labour leadership hustings: Starmer, Nandy, Long-Bailey and Thornberry debate on BBC Newsnight – as it happened
					

Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including Labour hustings




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## colinm

runnach said:


> But they are joined to your bum, Trev. Heat from bum radiates down
> 
> No arsey replies either



He'd need to take the bicycle clips off to let the warm air get to his feet, but then he'd maybe not get any passengers.


----------



## Tonybvi

I was advised that if you have the energy use it!! (Not sure if they were referring to the EV though!). Unless I know that I am going to be pushed for range I always have the car heater on as I find this much more comfortable than just the bum warmers.  Sometimes as a special treat I also switch the steering wheel heater on as well.


----------



## in h

2cv said:


> Here you are.


Sadly, I detest the look of SUVs.


----------



## Owlhouse

davef said:


> The BBC's science correspondent is Roger Harribin who after an infamous meeting with activists from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth was persuaded  the science of Global Warming was settled so no sceptical views could be allowed. ( Of course science is never settled, and theories constantly challenged to find faults in them. If it is settled and unchallengable it is religious dogma.) His qualification for such arrogance in not allowing the contrary views  of thousands of scientists.....a degree in English literature!
> 
> A slight correction - the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm which is .04% ( not .4%) The idea of this tiny amount being able to significantly warm the earth is ridiculous. It is like adding a teaspoon of hot water to a cold bath and expecting it to heat the bath. Those thinking that we can reduce this amount should remember if it was halved, plants would stop growing - and all life would slowly die.


Correct -  Co2 is 0.04%. I misplaced the decimal point.


----------



## trevskoda

caledonia said:


> My two 2.5turbo diesels ain’t going anywhere. Need my Isuzu pickup because of my rural situation and my T5 camper does less harm than flights to Bendydorm and the likes.


They will insure you of the road with price and very high rd tax.


----------



## Fisherman

davef said:


> The BBC's science correspondent is Roger Harribin who after an infamous meeting with activists from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth was persuaded  the science of Global Warming was settled so no sceptical views could be allowed. ( Of course science is never settled, and theories constantly challenged to find faults in them. If it is settled and unchallengable it is religious dogma.) His qualification for such arrogance in not allowing the contrary views  of thousands of scientists.....a degree in English literature!
> 
> A slight correction - the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm which is .04% ( not .4%) The idea of this tiny amount being able to significantly warm the earth is ridiculous. It is like adding a teaspoon of hot water to a cold bath and expecting it to heat the bath. Those thinking that we can reduce this amount should remember if it was halved, plants would stop growing - and all life would slowly die.



Sorry but currently we have 412 parts per million a rise of 48% since the start of the industrial revolution. Scientists have shown that if this increases to 800 ppm then that would result in a rise of 5c in global temperature. This would be disastrous. Levels of just 5% are lethal to life. You have to appreciate how fragile life is.
Small rises in temperature produced by tiny ppm of CO2 could prove catastrophic for life on our planet.


----------



## davef

Fisherman said:


> Sorry but currently we have 412 parts per million a rise of 48% since the start of the industrial revolution. Scientists have shown that if this increases to 800 ppm then that would result in a rise of 5c in global temperature. This would be disastrous. Levels of just 5% are lethal to life. You have to appreciate how fragile life is.
> Small rises in temperature produced by tiny ppm of CO2 could prove catastrophic for life on our planet.



Levels of "5% CO2 being lethal to life" equates to 50,000 ppm - as we are currently at approx 400 ppm thats not something anyone has to worry about !
It has been calculated that if all known reserves of fossil fuels were instantly burnt it would would nowhere near double current levels - and 800 ppm is not unhealthy to humans but very good for plant life, and would have no or insignificant effect on temperature. 
    The warmist theory of greenhouse effect has it that CO2 warms by absorbing a tiny frequency band of the infra red spectrum - when levels have reached 200 ppm it has absorbed 90% of all that frequency and it takes ever more increases of the CO2 to absorb the remaining 10% - on a logarithmic scale. So after 200 ppm it has very little effect. The climate alarmists then suggest that this tiny increase in temperature causes a slight increase in water vaporisation with water vapour being by far the major greenhouse gas this would cause a further temperature increase in an escalating positive feedback loop. Which is obviously nonsense, as a positive feedback loop would mean the whole system is totally unstable - which long term stable conditions show is not the case......
   AGW is just a scam that has transferred staggering amounts of money from the general public to the very rich and allowed nearly all manufacturing to move to 
 the far east and China where working and environmental conditions are so much lower so allowing the multinationals to make ever more profit. 
   Getting back to the change to EVs - its now found that tyres and brake wear cause 1000 x the amount of particulates than engines, so changing to electric wont make much difference to that. In fact a recent German study found the exhaust from euro 6 diesels was lower in particulates than the contaminated city air it was ingesting i.e. it was cleaning the air via the dpf. 
  As usual the government is making is making a mountain out of a molehill - it is like they are deliberately destroying our industrial base and way of life, ending freedoms and ever more tightly controlling us. Could it be they are following Agenda 21 to move everyone into cities, turn the countryside into re-wilded wilderness and it then envisioned a much lower population....... caronavirus??


----------



## caledonia

davef said:


> Levels of "5% CO2 being lethal to life" equates to 50,000 ppm - as we are currently at approx 400 ppm thats not something anyone has to worry about !
> It has been calculated that if all known reserves of fossil fuels were instantly burnt it would would nowhere near double current levels - and 800 ppm is not unhealthy to humans but very good for plant life, and would have no or insignificant effect on temperature.
> The warmist theory of greenhouse effect has it that CO2 warms by absorbing a tiny frequency band of the infra red spectrum - when levels have reached 200 ppm it has absorbed 90% of all that frequency and it takes ever more increases of the CO2 to absorb the remaining 10% - on a logarithmic scale. So after 200 ppm it has very little effect. The climate alarmists then suggest that this tiny increase in temperature causes a slight increase in water vaporisation with water vapour being by far the major greenhouse gas this would cause a further temperature increase in an escalating positive feedback loop. Which is obviously nonsense, as a positive feedback loop would mean the whole system is totally unstable - which long term stable conditions show is not the case......
> AGW is just a scam that has transferred staggering amounts of money from the general public to the very rich and allowed nearly all manufacturing to move to
> the far east and China where working and environmental conditions are so much lower so allowing the multinationals to make ever more profit.
> Getting back to the change to EVs - its now found that tyres and brake wear cause 1000 x the amount of particulates than engines, so changing to electric wont make much difference to that. In fact a recent German study found the exhaust from euro 6 diesels was lower in particulates than the contaminated city air it was ingesting i.e. it was cleaning the air via the dpf.
> As usual the government is making is making a mountain out of a molehill - it is like they are deliberately destroying our industrial base and way of life, ending freedoms and ever more tightly controlling us. Could it be they are following Agenda 21 to move everyone into cities, turn the countryside into re-wilded wilderness and it then envisioned a much lower population....... caronavirus??


Well said that man


----------



## Robmac

Great thread folks and some interesting facts and figures from both sides.

So much so that I am no longer sure on which side I stand any more. Certainly some food for thought from davef which I wouldn't have known about.

I shall follow with interest.


----------



## Fisherman

davef said:


> Levels of "5% CO2 being lethal to life" equates to 50,000 ppm - as we are currently at approx 400 ppm thats not something anyone has to worry about !
> It has been calculated that if all known reserves of fossil fuels were instantly burnt it would would nowhere near double current levels - and 800 ppm is not unhealthy to humans but very good for plant life, and would have no or insignificant effect on temperature.
> The warmist theory of greenhouse effect has it that CO2 warms by absorbing a tiny frequency band of the infra red spectrum - when levels have reached 200 ppm it has absorbed 90% of all that frequency and it takes ever more increases of the CO2 to absorb the remaining 10% - on a logarithmic scale. So after 200 ppm it has very little effect. The climate alarmists then suggest that this tiny increase in temperature causes a slight increase in water vaporisation with water vapour being by far the major greenhouse gas this would cause a further temperature increase in an escalating positive feedback loop. Which is obviously nonsense, as a positive feedback loop would mean the whole system is totally unstable - which long term stable conditions show is not the case......
> AGW is just a scam that has transferred staggering amounts of money from the general public to the very rich and allowed nearly all manufacturing to move to
> the far east and China where working and environmental conditions are so much lower so allowing the multinationals to make ever more profit.
> Getting back to the change to EVs - its now found that tyres and brake wear cause 1000 x the amount of particulates than engines, so changing to electric wont make much difference to that. In fact a recent German study found the exhaust from euro 6 diesels was lower in particulates than the contaminated city air it was ingesting i.e. it was cleaning the air via the dpf.
> As usual the government is making is making a mountain out of a molehill - it is like they are deliberately destroying our industrial base and way of life, ending freedoms and ever more tightly controlling us. Could it be they are following Agenda 21 to move everyone into cities, turn the countryside into re-wilded wilderness and it then envisioned a much lower population....... caronavirus??



I was not suggesting that we will ever see levels of 5% CO2 in our atmosphere. I was merely pointing out that such a small level of CO2 would prove fatal.
Also long before such dramatic increase in CO2 would have occurred I doubt if many would be here to witness it.
You really fail to understand just how fragile life is, and how seemingly tiny increases in CO2 levels with only slight increases in temperature can have dramatic effects. Global warming has always been with us, without it the whole planet would be covered in ice at an average temperature of minus 19c. Prior to the industrial revolution the mean temperature was 12.5c currently its 14c due to rising CO2 levels. If we carry on as we are by 2100 levels will reach around 800 ppm. That will equate to a mean temp of 17-18c. This rise in temperature will in part be due to a rise in water vapour due to an increase of evaporation from the sea. As well as the rise in temperature this rise in water vapour will dramatically change our weather patterns, crating arid parts and areas of the planet with much increased precipitation. Also sea levels will have risen and the incidence of hurricanes and their severity will have substantially increased.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search






The *greenhouse effect* occurs when certain gases in the Earth's atmosphere (the air around the Earth) trap infrared radiation. This makes the planet become warmer, similar to the way it makes a greenhouse become warmer. 
The greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases; the most important greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are: water vapor, carbon dioxide(CO2), and methane. When there is more greenhouse gas in the air, the air holds more heat. This is why more greenhouse gases cause climate change and global warming. 
The greenhouse effect is natural. It is important for life on Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average temperature would be around -18 or -19 degrees Celsius (0 or 1 degree Fahrenheit). Earth would be locked in an ice age. Because of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's actual average temperature is 14 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit). 
The problem is that recently, the greenhouse effect has become stronger. This is because humans have been using large amounts of fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide when they are burned. Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has caused the planet to warm over the past 150 years.
About 10,000 years ago, before people started burning large amounts of fossil fuels, there was 260 to 280 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, but now there is over 400 ppm. Most scientists say that having 350 ppm or less is safe for the environment and that species on the planet can adapt to this level. Higher levels can make severe problems for animal and marine life that are already being seen today, such as ocean acidification.
The greenhouse effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824. Mars, Venus and other planets with atmospheres also have greenhouse effects. The effect on Venus is especially strong because Venus has so much CO2. This is why Venus is hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun. The first person to predict that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels (and other combustion processes) could cause global warming was Svante Arrhenius.


----------



## Fazerloz

Not from Wikipedia  please that is notoriously wrong about so many subjects its unreal.

From Wikipedia  

*Wikipedia is not a reliable source*. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should _not_ be considered a definitive source in and of itself.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> Not from Wikipedia  please that is notoriously wrong about so many subjects its unreal.
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> *Wikipedia is not a reliable source*. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should _not_ be considered a definitive source in and of itself.



So we are now ignoring wiki, the UN, most countries in the world, most scientists worldwide on here. Please  tell us what part you don’t agree with. And if you don’t agree with them, why don’t you go on to wiki and change them. Let’s see how long your changes last.

But if you don’t trust, the UN, WIKI, most scientists,and most governments worldwide.

https://www.gsi.ie/en-ie/geoscience...e/Pages/Causes-and-the-greenhouse-effect.aspx

All wiki stated was that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the greater the effect of global warming. 

You are siding with Donald Trump


----------



## Martin P

davef said:


> Levels of "5% CO2 being lethal to life" equates to 50,000 ppm - as we are currently at approx 400 ppm thats not something anyone has to worry about !
> It has been calculated that if all known reserves of fossil fuels were instantly burnt it would would nowhere near double current levels - and 800 ppm is not unhealthy to humans but very good for plant life, and would have no or insignificant effect on temperature.
> The warmist theory of greenhouse effect has it that CO2 warms by absorbing a tiny frequency band of the infra red spectrum - when levels have reached 200 ppm it has absorbed 90% of all that frequency and it takes ever more increases of the CO2 to absorb the remaining 10% - on a logarithmic scale. So after 200 ppm it has very little effect. The climate alarmists then suggest that this tiny increase in temperature causes a slight increase in water vaporisation with water vapour being by far the major greenhouse gas this would cause a further temperature increase in an escalating positive feedback loop. Which is obviously nonsense, as a positive feedback loop would mean the whole system is totally unstable - which long term stable conditions show is not the case......
> AGW is just a scam that has transferred staggering amounts of money from the general public to the very rich and allowed nearly all manufacturing to move to
> the far east and China where working and environmental conditions are so much lower so allowing the multinationals to make ever more profit.
> Getting back to the change to EVs - its now found that tyres and brake wear cause 1000 x the amount of particulates than engines, so changing to electric wont make much difference to that. In fact a recent German study found the exhaust from euro 6 diesels was lower in particulates than the contaminated city air it was ingesting i.e. it was cleaning the air via the dpf.
> As usual the government is making is making a mountain out of a molehill - it is like they are deliberately destroying our industrial base and way of life, ending freedoms and ever more tightly controlling us. Could it be they are following Agenda 21 to move everyone into cities, turn the countryside into re-wilded wilderness and it then envisioned a much lower population....... caronavirus??


Great post
Really good to hear some good solid facts for a change


----------



## Fisherman

*The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist*



By Andrew Freedman



Published: May 3rd, 2013
The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.

According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Keeling is the son of Charles David Keeling, who began the CO2 observations at Mauna Loa in 1958 and for whom the iconic “Keeling Curve” is named.

Carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space.

The news that CO2 is near 400 ppm for the first time highlights a question that scientists have been investigating using a variety of methods: when was the last time that CO2 levels were this high, and what was the climate like back then?

There is no single, agreed-upon answer to those questions as studies show a wide date range from between 800,000 to 15 million years ago. The most direct evidence comes from tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in the vast ice sheets of Antarctica. By drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, scientists have found that, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now.

That means that in the entire history of human civilization, CO2 levels have never been this high.

The Keeling Curve, showing CO2 concentrations increasing to near 400 ppm in 2013.
Credit: NOAA.

Other research, though, shows that you have to go back much farther in time, well beyond 800,000 years ago, to find an instance where CO2 was sustained at 400 ppm or greater. 

For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.

“This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet. And so sea level was considerably higher — around 100 feet higher — than it is today,” said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, in an email conversation. “It is for this reason that some climate scientists, like James Hansen, have argued that even current-day CO2 levels are too high. There is the possibility that we’ve already breached the threshold of truly dangerous human influence on our climate and planet.”

Sea levels are increasing today in response to the warming climate, as ice sheets melt and seas expand due to rising temperatures. Scientists are projecting up to 3 feet or more of global sea level rise by 2100, which would put some coastal cities in peril.

While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to. 

A 2011 study in the journal Paleoceanography found that atmospheric CO2 levels may have been comparable to today’s as recently as sometime between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, during the Pliocene epoch, which saw the arrival of _Homo habilis_, a possible ancestor of modern homo sapiens, and when herds of giant, elephant-like Mastadons roamed North America. Modern human civilization didn’t arrive on the scene until the Holocene Epoch, which began 12,000 years ago.

Regardless of which estimate is correct, it is clear that CO2 levels are now higher than they have ever been in mankind’s history. With global CO2 emissions continuing on an upward trajectory that is likely to put CO2 concentrations above 450 ppm or higher, it is extremely unlikely that the steadily rising shape of the Keeling Curve is going to change anytime soon.

“There's an esthetic to the curve that's beautiful science and troubling reality,” Keeling said. “I'd very much like to see the curve change from going steadily upward to flattening out.”

Related Content
CO2 Emissions Expected to Rise Significantly By 2030
Global Carbon Emissions Hit Record High
Global CO2 Levels Set to Pass 400 ppm Milestone
In the Curve: Monitoring Rising Carbon Emissions


----------



## izwozral

Scientist were convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt, that planets were formed by high impact collisions, where huge lumps of rock collided with such force that they fused together. Now, researchers believe that planets were formed by gently coming together forming clusters of rock. The new evidence is based on 
the New Horizon spacecraft that mapped the 22 mile Arrokoth rock object that is circling Neptune.

I am still waiting for the new ice age that was promised in the 1960's.
Just goes to prove that scientific evidence isn't always correct.


----------



## mark61

One has to wonder what kind of obnoxious polluting vehicles Homo habilis were driving around in to get CO2 levels equal to what we have today. They were only little, lived to late 20’s and I doubt there was 7 billion + of them. Good grief, the greedy buggers must have all been in proper gas guzzlers. I mean, it must have been down to them, wasn't it?


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> Scientist were convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt, that planets were formed by high impact collisions, where huge lumps of rock collided with such force that they fused together. Now, researchers believe that planets were formed by gently coming together forming clusters of rock. The new evidence is based on
> the New Horizon spacecraft that mapped the 22 mile Arrokoth rock object that is circling Neptune.
> 
> I am still waiting for the new ice age that was promised in the 1960's.
> Just goes to prove that scientific evidence isn't always correct.



Sorry but astronomers were divided over the issue for decades.
Many could not equate how objects travelling at thousands mph in zero gravity could possibly join together after smashing into each other.
Astronomy is not a perfect science. It is based amongst things on theories put forward by scientists struggling with the time scales, distances, and the remoteness of the evidence required to substantiate their theories. There are no such difficulties in forming factual evidence on global warming.

IE for years the Big Bang theory was countered by a tiny minority of astronomers including the famous British astronomer Fred Hoyle with the steady state theory. But in recent years the steady state theory has gained more prominence.
Only 10 years ago after much debate and theory finally the presence of a super massive black hole was discovered at the centre of our galaxy and its generally accepted now that all galaxies have at their centre super massive black holes, providing the gravity which binds galaxies together. But for over a hundred years this was subject to much debate. I could go on, but the morale is, don’t compare measurable science which can be analysed here, with what are no more than theories formed by amongst other things a learned balance of probabilities.

Scientists  accept that increased CO2 equates to a rise in temperature, what’s up for debate is just what level of change higher levels will induce.


----------



## Fazerloz

The former co founder of Greenpeace.  Dr Patrick Moore


----------



## trevskoda

MInisters say it was made in 7 days and we all know they are correct.  
Strange thing is there were not always 7 days in a week or weeks for that mater,only light and dark,cold and warm.


----------



## Minisorella

We see and hear everywhere in the media etc that the proportion of scientists who agree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - ie climate change being caused by humans - is 97%. If you actually look at the studies (generally based on a varying numbers of published scientific papers) you will always see something along these lines (the actual figures vary over the studies but aren't relevant to the point I want to make):

34% (ish) of authors endorse AGW
64% of authors take no position on AGW
2% reject AGW
They conclude that, *of the authors who took a position on AGW*, (ie those who endorse or reject) 97% agree that humans are causing global warming.

The figures vary a lot over the years with the rejection percentage staying about the same but the endorse/no position percentages changing over time, with endorsements slowly rising. However, the 97% (ish) percent figure seems fairly stable throughout all the studies and is therefore the one that people quote. This is *always *based on_ those who took a position_ and ignores those who didn't. The latter shows that, irrespective of the exact figures in any given study, there remains a considerable percentage of scientists who obviously feel the jury is still out. Bear in mind also that some of the studies are based on tiny samples, sometimes as low as 529 papers, whereas the largest sample to date was 11,944 published papers out of a possible number well in the 100,000s.

Damn statistics eh? Is it really surprising that so many people can't wholeheartedly embrace climate change being man-made? Even if the entire population of the world agreed on that one fact, it still doesn't really solve anything does it? If it's true (and I agree that we should probably err on the side of caution!) then we need to be offered solutions - practical, affordable and effective solutions - which just aren't happening. If it's not true, then the planet will slowly cycle through another '-age' and those entities who adapt and survive will start afresh.


----------



## Fisherman

Minisorella said:


> We see and hear everywhere in the media etc that the proportion of scientists who agree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - ie climate change being caused by humans - is 97%. If you actually look at the studies (generally based on a varying numbers of published scientific papers) you will always see something along these lines (the actual figures vary over the studies but aren't relevant to the point I want to make):
> 
> 34% (ish) of authors endorse AGW
> 64% of authors take no position on AGW
> 2% reject AGW
> They conclude that, *of the authors who took a position on AGW*, (ie those who endorse or reject) 97% agree that humans are causing global warming.
> 
> The figures vary a lot over the years with the rejection percentage staying about the same but the endorse/no position percentages changing over time, with endorsements slowly rising. However, the 97% (ish) percent figure seems fairly stable throughout all the studies and is therefore the one that people quote. This is *always *based on_ those who took a position_ and ignores those who didn't. The latter shows that, irrespective of the exact figures in any given study, there remains a considerable percentage of scientists who obviously feel the jury is still out. Bear in mind also that some of the studies are based on tiny samples, sometimes as low as 529 papers, whereas the largest sample to date was 11,944 published papers out of a possible number well in the 100,000s.
> 
> Damn statistics eh? Is it really surprising that so many people can't wholeheartedly embrace climate change being man-made? Even if the entire population of the world agreed on that one fact, it still doesn't really solve anything does it? If it's true then we need to be offered solutions - practical, affordable and effective solutions - which just aren't happening. If it's not true, then the planet will slowly cycle through another '-age' and those entities who adapt and survive will start afresh.



My attitude is not entirely one sided here. I am not 100% convinced either.
But on the balance of probabilities and my basic understanding of the greenhouse effect, and taking into consideration many things weather related that are happening I think there is every reason to believe that mankind is affecting our planet. This is due to many factors, burning fossil fuels, being only one of many.

But as I have said before if scientists are correct and we do nothing then the last thing we will be concerned with is electric vehicles. The consequences of ignoring the warnings may be to great to ignore.


----------



## izwozral

Fisherman said:


> Sorry but astronomers were divided over the issue for decades.
> Many could not equate how objects travelling at thousands mph in zero gravity could possibly join together after smashing into each other.
> *Astronomy is not a perfect science.* It is based amongst things on theories put forward by scientists struggling with the time scales, distances, and the remoteness of the evidence required to substantiate their theories. *There are no such difficulties in forming factual evidence on global warming.*
> 
> IE for years the Big Bang theory was countered by a tiny minority of astronomers including the famous British astronomer Fred Hoyle with the steady state theory. But in recent years the steady state theory has gained more prominence.
> Only 10 years ago after much debate and theory finally the presence of a super massive black hole was discovered at the centre of our galaxy and its generally accepted now that all galaxies have at their centre super massive black holes, providing the gravity which binds galaxies together. But for over a hundred years this was subject to much debate.* I could go on*, but the morale is, don’t compare measurable science which can be analysed here, with what are no more than theories formed by amongst other things a learned balance of probabilities.
> 
> Scientists  accept that increased CO2 equates to a rise in temperature, what’s up for debate is just what level of change higher levels will induce.



*There are no such difficulties in forming factual evidence on global warming. *I think some may disagree with that.

*Astronomy is not a perfect science. *Nor the science around global warming, otherwise all scientist would agree.

* I could go on. *Please don't.


----------



## runnach

Like others in my mind the jury is out, but I would certainly err on the side of caution.

President trump has already been dismissed as some lunatic which overall maybe true,but when he wouldn’t sign the Paris accord , it was one sided reporting.in that he wasn’t bothered and sticking two fingers up at the world.

The USA is addressing climate change but are approaching the matter from a diffent angle. At Paris one of the major topics was animal flatulance causing global warming and subsequently there has been a big shift to move away from meat as part of our diet 

What Trump actually did rather than put a significant industry at risk was concentrate on the feed namely grazing grass. There is a significant attempt in the Us to genetically modify the grass that they graze thus protecting an industry and the thousand of jobs.. that is what happened but rare you read reports 

Of course genetic modification of food stuffs is controversial but in essence no different to other  vegetation where the yield is maximised.

So which ever side you bat ,all is not what it seems


----------



## Fazerloz

The 97% of Scientists claim explained.


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> *There are no such difficulties in forming factual evidence on global warming. *I think some may disagree with that.
> 
> *Astronomy is not a perfect science. *Nor the science around global warming, otherwise all scientist would agree.
> 
> * I could go on. *Please don't.



Please don't what exactly.?

There is no difficulty  whatsoever in determining that CO2, methane, and water vapour create Global warming. They have been doing so for billions of years.
if you don’t agree with that you are not in touch with reality.
What is up for debate is not that CO2 has effects on our climate, what are up for debate is to what extent it will effect our climate, and at what levels, and who or what is responsible.

No science is perfect, but that is no reason to simply dismiss what scientists say on any given subject. But comparing an astronomical theory such as how planetesimals
form into larger bodies with global warming is completely misleading. One being theoretical and the other being factual. CO2 does affect our climate, fact. planetesimals  may have formed into larger bodies by colliding, was merely a theory or educated guess.

But if you are 100% sure that global warming is a farce, put out by scientists who don’t know what they are talking about because they get things wrong sometimes, so be it.


----------



## Fazerloz

Is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change actually the "Ministry of Science" from Orwell's 1984.


----------



## colinm

Fazerloz said:


> Is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change actually the "Ministry of Science" from Orwell's 1984.



From Wiki.


> The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[9] However, the IPCC can be said to stimulate research in climate science. Chapters of IPCC reports often close with sections on limitations and knowledge or research gaps, and the announcement of an IPCC special report can catalyse research activity in that area.


----------



## Fisherman

channa said:


> Like others in my mind the jury is out, but I would certainly err on the side of caution.
> 
> President trump has already been dismissed as some lunatic which overall maybe true,but when he wouldn’t sign the Paris accord , it was one sided reporting.in that he wasn’t bothered and sticking two fingers up at the world.
> 
> The USA is addressing climate change but are approaching the matter from a diffent angle. At Paris one of the major topics was animal flatulance causing global warming and subsequently there has been a big shift to move away from meat as part of our diet
> 
> What Trump actually did rather than put a significant industry at risk was concentrate on the feed namely grazing grass. There is a significant attempt in the Us to genetically modify the grass that they graze thus protecting an industry and the thousand of jobs.. that is what happened but rare you read reports
> 
> Of course genetic modification of food stuffs is controversial but in essence no different to other  vegetation where the yield is maximised.
> 
> So which ever side you bat ,all is not what it seems



Me to Andrew the jury is out.
I only hope the jury get it right, because if they don’t the consequences will be awful.
I have a simple theory about Trump, if he says black I say white.


----------



## izwozral

Fisherman said:


> Please don't what exactly.?
> 
> There is no difficulty  whatsoever in determining that CO2, methane, and water vapour create Global warming. They have been doing so for billions of years.
> if you don’t agree with that you are not in touch with reality.
> What is up for debate is not that CO2 has effects on our climate, what are up for debate is to what extent it will effect our climate, and at what levels, and who or what is responsible.
> 
> No science is perfect, but that is no reason to simply dismiss what scientists say on any given subject. But comparing an astronomical theory such as how planetesimals
> form into larger bodies with global warming is completely misleading. One being theoretical and the other being factual. CO2 does affect our climate, fact. planetesimals  may have formed into larger bodies by colliding, was merely a theory or educated guess.
> 
> But if you are 100% sure that global warming is a farce, put out by scientists who don’t know what they are talking about because they get things wrong sometimes, so be it.



No, I don't think global warming is a farce, it has been happening throughout millennia.  It is the fear mongering that is a farce. 
Watch the clips that Fazerloz has posted, they pretty much mirror my thoughts on global warming -  and they explain my thoughts on it far better than I can! 

Extinction Rebellion and that Scandi school kid Grotty Thumbscrew, or whatever her name is, are manna from heaven for the governments that wish to further control our everyday lives.

If you feel impending doom is upon us then I feel sorry for you, I really do.


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> No, I don't think global warming is a farce, it has been happening throughout millennia.  It is the fear mongering that is a farce.
> Watch the clips that Fazerloz has posted, they pretty much mirror my thoughts on global warming -  and they explain my thoughts on it far better than I can!
> 
> Extinction Rebellion and that Scandi school kid Grotty Thumbscrew, or whatever her name is, are manna from heaven for the governments that wish to further control our everyday lives.
> 
> If you feel impending doom is upon us then I feel sorry for you, I really do.



Sorry but please show me where I stated impending doom is upon us, or that I am even 100% behind the argument for global warming.
As for feeling sorry for me, how patronising is that.
I have no time for extinction rebellion, and as for the kid who should get on with her education, well least said the better.
My opinion is open minded, but I do tend to think that scientists MAY be right.
But what I am not prepared to do is simply ignore warnings coming from many corners.
Because if the scientists are right, and you are wrong.


----------



## Fazerloz

*Carbon Dioxide is Making The World Greener*


----------



## Fazerloz

izwozral said:


> No, I don't think global warming is a farce, it has been happening throughout millennia.  It is the fear mongering that is a farce.
> Watch the clips that Fazerloz has posted, they pretty much mirror my thoughts on global warming -  and they explain my thoughts on it far better than I can!
> 
> Extinction Rebellion and that Scandi school kid Grotty Thumbscrew, or whatever her name is, are manna from heaven for the governments that wish to further control our everyday lives.
> 
> If you feel impending doom is upon us then I feel sorry for you, I really do.



i don't think many will watch the clips as they are entrenched in their beliefs, it has been likened to a religion. Also nobody likes to think there is a possibility they might have been duped.


----------



## izwozral

Fisherman said:


> Sorry but please show me where I stated impending doom is upon us, or that I am even 100% behind the argument for global warming.
> As for feeling sorry for me, how patronising is that.
> I have no time for extinction rebellion, and as for the kid who should get on with her education, well least said the better.
> My opinion is open minded, but I do tend to think that scientists MAY be right.
> But what I am not prepared to do is simply ignore warnings coming from many corners.
> Because if the scientists are right, and you are wrong.



*Sorry but please show me where I stated impending doom is upon us, or that I am even 100% behind the argument for global warming.*
Well your posts on this subject are hardly full of the joys of Spring are they?
*As for feeling sorry for me, how patronising is that.*
Patronising no, just concern that people buy into what is just hypothesis at best. 
*Because if the scientists are right, and you are wrong. *
We will most likely never know.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this I guess.

No doubt you think the earth is round too?


----------



## Minisorella

izwozral said:


> No, I don't think global warming is a farce, it has been happening throughout millennia.  It is the fear mongering that is a farce.
> Watch the clips that Fazerloz has posted, they pretty much mirror my thoughts on global warming -  and they explain my thoughts on it far better than I can!
> 
> Extinction Rebellion and that Scandi school kid Grotty Thumbscrew, or whatever her name is, are manna from heaven for the governments that wish to further control our everyday lives.
> 
> If you feel impending doom is upon us then I feel sorry for you, I really do.



No matter where individuals stand on the issue, without a doubt the fear mongering alone has conjured up the biggest gravy train that ever left a station!


----------



## Fazerloz

Minisorella said:


> No matter where individuals stand on the issue, without a doubt the fear mongering alone has conjured up the biggest gravy train that ever left a station!



That must be the truest statement in the entire thread.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Sorry but please show me where I stated impending doom is upon us,



Would this count as fairly impending.
From your post #157
You state that doing nothing is an option, then you have to be 100% certain that you are right, I am not 100% certain I am right. Because if you are wrong, we are doomed.


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> *Sorry but please show me where I stated impending doom is upon us, or that I am even 100% behind the argument for global warming.*
> Well your posts on this subject are hardly full of the joys of Spring are they?
> *As for feeling sorry for me, how patronising is that.*
> Patronising no, just concern that people buy into what is just hypothesis at best.
> *Because if the scientists are right, and you are wrong. *
> We will most likely never know.
> 
> We will just have to agree to disagree on this I guess.
> 
> No doubt you think the earth is round too?



Sorry I was not aware that my posts were to be filled with the joys of spring.
I thought this was a serious topic, worthy of serious debate.
Not material for a stand up comedian in a Dublin bar.
As for your concern for someone who dares to think differently than you, I think you know what you can do with that additional patronising comment.
And you certainly won’t know if you are wrong, you will have left that to your grand kids, you won’t be around to find out. 

The only hypothesis I have bought into is you might be wrong, or the scientists might be right.

As for the earth being round, well Greek scientists worked that out 2000 years ago. But I have no doubt that if you were around then you would have pointed out that the others still thought it was flat, and that they all talk a load of


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman in post #137 you state.
I looked really hard for real data (well what I thought was real data), and found plenty of real data. I looked for deceptive information, never found any. I read books and articles written by real scientists (well they claim to have BAs, MAs and PHDs) watched many programmes about global warming.  

Have any of the Youtube vids I have posted by real scientists and there are many, many more, given you a cause to doubt your beliefs about GW and that we might all have been fed a crock of sh=t.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> Would this count as fairly impending.
> From your post #157
> You state that doing nothing is an option, then you have to be 100% certain that you are right, I am not 100% certain I am right. Because if you are wrong, we are doomed.



please carefully read what I say, taking into consideration the word *IF*

Also that is misleading.
it looks like I said doing nothing is an option, I was referring to what someone had said. I don’t think doing nothing is an option, because unlike some on here I don’t think that I am 100% convinced that this is all a rouge. But neither am I convinced totally about what scientists are stating. 

What I stated was *IF* those who reckon the scientists are wrong, are wrong and the scientists who are predicting global Armageddon are right, and we do nothing, then logically we are doomed.  

I don’t think we are doomed, because I think that we will overcome this.
We tend to be good at this type of thing as a species, hence our dominance.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> please carefully read what I say, taking into consideration the word *IF*
> 
> Also that is misleading.
> it looks like I said doing nothing is an option, I was referring to what someone had said. I don’t think doing nothing is an option, because unlike some on here I don’t think that I am 100% convinced that this is all a rouge. But neither am I convinced totally about what scientists are stating.
> 
> What I stated was *IF* those who reckon the scientists are wrong, are wrong and the scientists who are predicting global Armageddon are right, and we do nothing, then logically we are doomed.
> 
> I don’t think we are doomed, because I think that we will overcome this.
> We tend to be good at this type of thing as a species, hence our dominance.



It isn't misleading at all i say its from your post and you wouldn't refer to yourself as you.  In fact it was I who said doing nothing was an option which it is.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> Fisherman in post #137 you state.
> I looked really hard for real data (well what I thought was real data), and found plenty of real data. I looked for deceptive information, never found any. I read books and articles written by real scientists (well they claim to have BAs, MAs and PHDs) watched many programmes about global warming.
> 
> Have any of the Youtube vids I have posted by real scientists and there are many, many more, given you a cause to doubt your beliefs about GW and that we might all have been fed a crock of sh=t.



Sorry what beliefs do I have about global warming.
you keep telling me I have beliefs.
I have posted on here many times that I have doubts.
But not based on any data, purely on a gut feeling that I have.
But for the umpteenth time, because unlike you who is 100% certain that this is a load of bollox, I think we have take measures to prevent what would be catastrophic if you are wrong.
I sincerely hope that you and others are right, but you might not be right.
I am NOT totally convinced either way.
But doing nothing, carrying on as we are, I don’t think is right.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> It isn't misleading at all i say its from your post and you wouldn't refer to yourself as you.  In fact it was I who said doing nothing was an option which it is.



Well there’s the rub, you are so confident that the scientists are wrong, and I am not. I am like many undecided and simply think we have to take this seriously. Because doing nothing and being totally wrong, is simply not an option.


----------



## izwozral

I am getting the uncanny feeling that Wintonian has reincarnated and is posting on here?


----------



## mark61

It's not "the scientists" They are not a hive mind on this.


----------



## trevskoda

izwozral said:


> I am getting the uncanny feeling that Wintonian has reincarnated and is posting on here?


Yep drove the devil clean mad so was turfed out.


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> I am getting the uncanny feeling that Wintonian has reincarnated and is posting on here?



You probably get lots of uncanny feelings about lots of things, then turn them into facts Izwozral.


----------



## izwozral

Fisherman said:


> You probably get lots of uncanny feelings about lots of things, then turn them into facts Izwozral.



Sure do.


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> Sure do.



your best post today


----------



## izwozral

Thank you.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Well there’s the rub, you are so confident that the scientists are wrong, and I am not. I am like many undecided and simply think we have to take this seriously. Because doing nothing and being totally wrong, is simply not an option.



You say "the scientists" like its all scientists and its certainly not all scientists. There are lots of scientists i agree with and believe.


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> Thank you.



Izwozral you are welcome


----------



## izwozral

Of course.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> You say "the scientists" like its all scientists and its certainly not all scientists. There are lots of scientists i agree with and believe.



I am talking about the scientists you don’t agree with.
Obviously the ones who think this is all nonsense you will agree with.
I am not talking about all scientists.


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> Of course.



You have been all day


----------



## izwozral

Missing an f?


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> Missing an f?




NO OFF COURSE 

Whats an “f” between protagonists Izzy.
Well up here it’s used a lot, “what the f are you talking about“ or “go and take a running f”, so maybe best that the f is missing


----------



## Fazerloz

The cost of Windmills.


----------



## Nabsim

I stopped reading a lot of the posts a while ago as it got far too in depth for me. I think though that no matter what you think of any of the stats it should be obvious to everyone we need change.
Just go away in the van for a week and do a shop, you will end up with a couple of bin bags of rubbish easy. We should be using technology to put fresh food without packaging taken away in stores. I am absolutely if Amazon wanted to tackle this they would have a fully working solution in months.
We should have alternate energy sources and a lot of us will already in their vans, just not propulsion.
It needs the world to stop point scoring and falling out and work together, that’s the real challenge. People are inherently greedy and selfish (generic people) so probably won’t happen until a lot have died and it’s forced on those that remain


----------



## Fazerloz

sparrks said:


> What kind of heater do EVs have? kind of curious - obviously electric but what kind?



You have to smile. I have just been on the fb chinese diesel heater group and there are some fitting them in their EVs  wtf.


----------



## trevskoda

Fazerloz said:


> You have to smile. I have just been on the fb chinese diesel heater group and there are some fitting them in their EVs  wtf.


Iceland trip in winter.


----------



## trevskoda

Some eyeballs that chap has in vid,to much porn on the net id say.


----------



## izwozral

trevskoda said:


> Some eyeballs that chap has in vid,to much porn on the net id say.




I didn't want to say it but I couldn't watch more than a couple of minutes of that guys eyeballs, they were freaking me out big time. Shiiit, if my balls were as big as them I would strut naked!


----------



## sparrks

Fazerloz said:


> You have to smile. I have just been on the fb chinese diesel heater group and there are some fitting them in their EVs  wtf.


I remember there was a post about a year ago that the most common fitted aftermarket (in New Zealand possibly) accessory was a diesel heater


----------



## Robmac

izwozral said:


> I didn't want to say it but I couldn't watch more than a couple of minutes of that guys eyeballs, they were freaking me out big time. Shiiit, if my balls were as big as them I would strut naked!


----------



## Fazerloz

izwozral said:


> I didn't want to say it but I couldn't watch more than a couple of minutes of that guys eyeballs, they were freaking me out big time. Shiiit, if my balls were as big as them I would strut naked!



A pity you let his balls get in the way of some enlightening figures he does look like he could possibly have Graves disease. 
 I guess you didn't watch Marty Feldman then.


----------



## izwozral

Fazerloz said:


> A pity you let his balls get in the way of some enlightening figures he does look like he could possibly have Graves disease.
> I guess you didn't watch Marty Feldman then.



Solution, I will listen to the clip later without watching it! 
Marty Feldman was one of my favourite comedians, oddly enough his eyes didn't disturb me because of the comical face they were set in.


----------



## sparrks

Fazerloz said:


> The cost of Windmills.


I can't see why Africa cannot go big time on solar power generation and infill with fossil fuels.


----------



## 2cv

Fazerloz said:


> The cost of Windmills.



He certainly knows a lot about Eternity.


----------



## Fazerloz

2cv said:


> He certainly knows a lot about Eternity.



At least he put his money where his mouth was.


----------



## landoboguy

well Elon seems to have grasped the solar, would love to see his battery set up and controller under his bed  
Im guessing the silver things that look like ducting are charge controllers


----------



## landoboguy

trevskoda said:


> My feet get cold not my Bum.


Same  and I just done 160 miles in my new  leccy car, turned seat heaters off and climate on, cost me some distance though..my backside was twitching a bit


----------



## Deleted member 64209

harrow said:


> Its like people who tow caravans, how will they do that with electric cars ?



London Underground uses decades old battery locos that haul heavy ballast trucks with ease so there's no fear of a lack of power with electric motors...I think hydrogen is the elephant in the room, with conversion it'll even clean up our pathetically inefficient antique infernal combustion engines...


----------



## Deleted member 64209

landoboguy said:


> Same  and I just done 160 miles in my new  leccy car, turned seat heaters off and climate on, cost me some distance though..my backside was twitching a bit


Envious! [of your leccy car, not yer backside, hot, cold or twitchy]...


----------



## trevskoda

bedonwheels said:


> London Underground uses decades old battery locos that haul heavy ballast trucks with ease so there's no fear of a lack of power with electric motors...I think hydrogen is the elephant in the room, with conversion it'll even clean up our pathetically inefficient antique infernal combustion engines...


Problem is it uses 40% energy to extract it and compress thus making it not so clean.


----------



## sparrks

trevskoda said:


> Problem is it uses 40% energy to extract it and compress thus making it not so clean.


Not the latest technology apparently


----------



## vintageb3

Fisherman said:


> bye the way it’s 2032 for Scotland.


Who cares about Scotland?


----------



## Deleted member 64209

trevskoda said:


> Problem is it uses 40% energy to extract it and compress thus making it not so clean.



Well.. if renewable leccy is used to produce the hydrogen and compress it then things should be pretty clean... I know we all rely on infernal combustion lumps at the moment but let's face it, it's dirty inefficient antiquated  technology that's well overdue replacement for all too many reasons...


----------



## Pedalman

izwozral said:


> "New *petrol* and *diesel* cars *banned* from *2035*. A *ban* on selling new *petrol* and *diesel* cars will be brought forward by five years to improve air quality, the prime minister will announce today. Boris Johnson will say that the sale of new combustion engine cars and vans will end in *2035* rather than 2040."
> 
> Don't panic, don't panic, no mention of MH's or vans or lorries.
> 
> That's alright then?


They are only banning the selling of NEW petrol/diesel  from 2035, just  buy a diesel / petrol motorhome in 2034 and it will last 25+ years. 
There will still be plenty of secondhand ones around for a few decades.


----------



## Fisherman

vintageb3 said:


> Who cares about Scotland?



5.2 million Scots for one.


----------



## Deleted member 81218

Hi guys. I work for a big car manufacturer. At this present time this country does not have the infrastructure to go all electric. Even then, when the government decides we still think we wont have it. As we have all said. Is china and Russia doing the same the answer is no , so why do we get punished and robbed paying high taxes etc.
The batteries on the cars have a,life span of 5 years, so where will they get dumped when there no good.
There will be cables running everywhere, lots of tripping hazards so at least we can put a claim in when we trip over the cables ha ha.
You can go on and on about this but the whole of the uk needs to stick together. After all we are a small island and with the uk going all electric wont make a difference.


----------



## trevskoda

Nathandgina said:


> Hi guys. I work for a big car manufacturer. At this present time this country does not have the infrastructure to go all electric. Even then, when the government decides we still think we wont have it. As we have all said. Is china and Russia doing the same the answer is no , so why do we get punished and robbed paying high taxes etc.
> The batteries on the cars have a,life span of 5 years, so where will they get dumped when there no good.
> There will be cables running everywhere, lots of tripping hazards so at least we can put a claim in when we trip over the cables ha ha.
> You can go on and on about this but the whole of the uk needs to stick together. After all we are a small island and with the uk going all electric wont make a difference.


Tesla say the batteries will last 40 years so outlasting the car, you have got incorrect info somewhere.


----------



## Tonybvi

My Tesla has a battery guaranteed for 8 years unlimited mileage.  I’m sure Tesla wouldn’t have given this if they only last for 5 years!
In response to an earlier post I happen to be one of those who cares about Scotland as I live there and love the country.


----------



## Fisherman

Nathandgina said:


> Hi guys. I work for a big car manufacturer. At this present time this country does not have the infrastructure to go all electric. Even then, when the government decides we still think we wont have it. As we have all said. Is china and Russia doing the same the answer is no , so why do we get punished and robbed paying high taxes etc.
> The batteries on the cars have a,life span of 5 years, so where will they get dumped when there no good.
> There will be cables running everywhere, lots of tripping hazards so at least we can put a claim in when we trip over the cables ha ha.
> You can go on and on about this but the whole of the uk needs to stick together. After all we are a small island and with the uk going all electric wont make a difference.



And what about the 40,000 people who die each year due to pollution from our cars. Or is this just being made up by the medical profession. Yes we are are small island but with 64million people, and living in some of the most polluted cities on the planet. 
If every country adopted the we are doing nothing policy because of what another is doing then nothing would get done.
As for the 5 year lifespan of car batteries, I don't know were you got that one from.
Most experts reckon it’s 10-20 years, with many giving 8 year warranties.
But technology will improve, and in years to come this will probably be even longer.


----------



## runnach

Re car manufacturers, globally they are going to resist ,in Europe as an example the vag group pretty much rule the roost in market share but that is based on today’s technology , with lower cost bases come electric places like chins,Korea may well be the successors as kings of market share. Then there are the oil companies new technology interfering with their cartels,,,its going to be interesting


----------



## 2cv

Fisherman said:


> And what about the 40,000 people who die each year due to pollution from our cars. Or is this just being made up by the medical profession*. Yes we are are small island but with 64million people, and living in some of the most polluted cities on the planet.*
> If every country adopted the we are doing nothing policy because of what another is doing then nothing would get done.
> As for the 5 year lifespan of car batteries, I don't know were you got that one from.
> Most experts reckon it’s 10-20 years, with many giving 8 year warranties.
> But technology will improve, and in years to come this will probably be even longer.



Actually we don’t even have a city in the top 500.


----------



## Nightwalker

And all this from a PM that has no technical knowledge and advisers that are more interested in spinning the nirvana - Let's Get it Done.  UK produces less than 1% of the World carbon emissions....wow, we really are going to make a difference!  And how many of the actual big CO2 producers are rushing to embrace Boris's ideal?  Not even China thinks it realistic....and they're pretty much leading the electric technology future (for the masses) now.
Joker PM with no pragmatic understanding of the real world. 
How about some 'energy' spent on getting our roads running smoothly so the CO2 emissions are reduced.  The UK has 3rd World roads.

To help those who are shooting from the hip on this issue (a lot from what I've read so far) may I suggest a bit of research - here's a starter for 10....
_www.ev-database.co.uk_    And to the uninitiated the key factor will be infrastructure.....and mileage ranges quoted do not equate to the actual (real-world) distances travelled because the maths do not account for the time spent standing still or in queues.  And these decisions/announcements are being taken by people who mostly don't drive cars or have to run cars themselves....just a thought.


----------



## Nabsim

I just don’t understand the bias on ev’s, yes we need to change in most areas of modern life I don’t disagree at all. Just a government is only ever in power for a short time so setting unrealistic targets in the future isn’t really a problem for them.
I honestly can’t see how ev’s can work for total population but accept they have good markets and are a good solution for certain people.
We really do need the push to hydrogen or some other yet to be mentioned technology that is far more practical for most end users not to mention service station network already in place just needing conversion.


----------



## Nightwalker

Pedalman said:


> They are only banning the selling of NEW petrol/diesel  from 2035, just  buy a diesel / petrol motorhome in 2034 and it will last 25+ years.
> There will still be plenty of secondhand ones around for a few decades.


And it's only a sound-bite after all.  The pragmatists will eventually get the message through and we'll have been through another 4 governments by then anyway.


----------



## Fisherman

2cv said:


> Actually we don’t even have a city in the top 500.



Most of these cities are in China 2cv.
Pollution levels are above safe levels in every one of our cities, and as I stated medical experts reckon 40,000 people die prematurely every year from pollution.
And many others will suffer from this.


----------



## Tonybvi

To bring this thread back to a much lower esoteric level as it gets a bit deep sometimes I drive an EV for the following reasons.  I have just completed a 600 odd mile round trip in the most appalling conditions in my EV.  Total stopping time each 300 mile leg for charging was 40 minutes during which time we had coffee or lunch - no longer time than we would have stopped in our diesel Skoda.  Because I am lucky enough to get free supercharging for the life of my ownership of the car the total journey fuel cost was £0, compared with about £100 for the same trip in the Skoda.  The EV doesn’t need much servicing (something like 200 moving parts as opposed to something like 1000 plus on an ICE car I believe) - no oil to change, very little brake wear due to regeneration, etc!  Plus I feel pretty righteous when driving it.
At the end of the day for me it’s a car I like driving and it is very cheap to run - this doesn’t outweigh the initial purchase cost but that pain is past now!!


----------



## saxonborg

Nabsim said:


> I just don’t understand the bias on ev’s, yes we need to change in most areas of modern life I don’t disagree at all. Just a government is only ever in power for a short time so setting unrealistic targets in the future isn’t really a problem for them.
> I honestly can’t see how ev’s can work for total population but accept they have good markets and are a good solution for certain people.
> We really do need the push to hydrogen or some other yet to be mentioned technology that is far more practical for most end users not to mention service station network already in place just needing conversion.


I see lots of mention of hydrogen but where would it all come from with it’s production being environmentally friendly?


----------



## Fisherman

Nabsim said:


> I just don’t understand the bias on ev’s, yes we need to change in most areas of modern life I don’t disagree at all. Just a government is only ever in power for a short time so setting unrealistic targets in the future isn’t really a problem for them.
> I honestly can’t see how ev’s can work for total population but accept they have good markets and are a good solution for certain people.
> We really do need the push to hydrogen or some other yet to be mentioned technology that is far more practical for most end users not to mention service station network already in place just needing conversion.



I don’t think the government expect us all to be driving EVs by 2035 or even 2050. But if say we managed to get to 50/50 and manage localised pollution in cities that would make a massive difference. Technology will improve and so will infrastructure. But it will take time.


----------



## colinm

saxonborg said:


> I see lots of mention of hydrogen but where would it all come from with it’s production being environmentally friendly?



One of the big problems with renewables when getting to saturation levels is storing any excess, hydrogen production could be a way of doing this.


----------



## Martin P

Anybody here got an ev over 5 years old?
How are the batteries doing.?


----------



## Fisherman

saxonborg said:


> I see lots of mention of hydrogen but where would it all come from with it’s production being environmentally friendly?



Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe.
Water is two thirds hydrogen and this can be extracted simply and cleanly using electrolysis.


----------



## colinm

Martin P said:


> Anybody here got an ev over 5 years old?
> How are the batteries doing.?


On another forum this was discussed, and the two people who had older EV's had never had any issues. It's probably  akin to someone saying all ICE's breakdown when they are over 5 y.o.


----------



## Nightwalker

Tonybvi said:


> My Tesla has a battery guaranteed for 8 years unlimited mileage.  I’m sure Tesla wouldn’t have given this if they only last for 5 years!
> In response to an earlier post I happen to be one of those who cares about Scotland as I live there and love the country.


I'd check the small print.  Your battery will have a mileage limitation and also the warranty is only likely to guarantee a residual charge capacity.  But well done on being able to afford one.....most people won't.


----------



## Tonybvi

Martin P said:


> Anybody here got an ev over 5 years old?
> How are the batteries doing.?


Can’t answer that but the Tesla 8 year guarantee uses a measure of less than 70% of original battery capacity after 8 years to trigger the guarantee.


----------



## colinm

Nightwalker said:


> I'd check the small print.  Your battery will have a mileage limitation and also the warranty is only likely to guarantee a residual charge capacity.  But well done on being able to afford one.....most people won't.



Tesla's have a 8 year 100,000 mile warranty on the battery, this is better than the majority of ICE warrenties.
Meanwhile. https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-may-soon-have-a-battery-that-can-last-a-million-miles/


----------



## Fisherman

Let’s look ahead here.
Yes the current infrastructure is nowhere enough, but this will be built up over the next decade. Battery technology has improved greatly in the past decade and it will improve even more in future. Tesla reckon that soon they will have batteries that will see out the cars, lasting up to 40 years.
One of the largest problems is electricity supply.
This will necessitate building 2 or 3 nuclear power stations.


----------



## Tonybvi

Nightwalker said:


> I'd check the small print.  Your battery will have a mileage limitation and also the warranty is only likely to guarantee a residual charge capacity.  But well done on being able to afford one.....most people won't.



My battery does not have a mileage limitation on its guarantee.  I bought the car just before Tesla introduced a 150,000 mile limitation after 8 years - even if I had this limit i drive nowhere near that distance in 8 years.  The guarantee kicks in if the battery drops to lower than 70% of original capacity.
The Model X Tesla’s being delivered today have a rated range (meaningless I know!) of 351 miles against my range of 328 miles.  However it is rumoured that I will get this increase via an OTA update as the increase results from improved efficiencies in how the software manages the battery and motors.  Not bad for free if I get it.


----------



## Asterix

Fisherman said:


> Let’s look ahead here.
> Yes the current infrastructure is nowhere enough, but this will be built up over the next decade. Battery technology has improved greatly in the past decade and it will improve even more in future. Tesla reckon that soon they will have batteries that will see out the cars, lasting up to 40 years.
> One of the largest problems is electricity supply.
> This will necessitate building 2 or 3 nuclear power stations.



I don't see electricity supply as an issue,what we have now should be ample,it's a matter of levelling out supply and demand which is very unbalanced at the moment. EVs can and will help to level this out if they are integrated into the system ie charging when demand is low (and cheaper) and putting back into the system at peak demand times and getting paid more for it.


----------



## Fisherman

Asterix said:


> I don't see electricity supply as an issue,what we have now should be ample,it's a matter of levelling out supply and demand which is very unbalanced at the moment. EVs can and will help to level this out if they are integrated into the system ie charging when demand is low (and cheaper) and putting back into the system at peak demand times and getting paid more for it.



Even better then.


----------



## Asterix

Fisherman said:


> Even better then.



I read about one of the Scandi countries (don't recall which) but some of their EV drivers are actually getting a small profit from doing just that,depends on how you use your EV I guess but if you're only using it for short commutes then you can probably put a large % back into the grid. Think of all the EVs as one massive battery ready for instant demand from the grid,something we don't presently have,it takes time to restart power stations to cope with peak demands,which is the cause of most power cuts,EVs can stabilise the grid and prevent this happening.


----------



## Asterix

Another EV (Tesla) advantage...









						'Miracle' as falling tree narrowly misses two Teslas – because the cars have automatic emergency brakes
					

A ‘MIRACLE’ twist of fate saved a family’s life when their car was hit by a huge falling tree as Storm Dennis raged through Dorset.




					www.bournemouthecho.co.uk


----------



## Tonybvi

Asterix said:


> I read about one of the Scandi countries (don't recall which) but some of their EV drivers are actually getting a small profit from doing just that,depends on how you use your EV I guess but if you're only using it for short commutes then you can probably put a large % back into the grid. Think of all the EVs as one massive battery ready for instant demand from the grid,something we don't presently have,it takes time to restart power stations to cope with peak demands,which is the cause of most power cuts,EVs can stabilise the grid and prevent this happening.



I‘ve got a feeling that Orkney, the uk powerhouse for renewable energy, does something similar, although it could be that folk are charging at work for free then using power from the car at home to reduce their own costs!!


----------



## trevskoda

Fisherman said:


> Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe.
> Water is two thirds hydrogen and this can be extracted simply and cleanly using electrolysis.


And the electric of course is free to make to do the job,dont think so.


----------



## Fisherman

trevskoda said:


> And the electric of course is free to make to do the job,dont think so.



Well it is if you fiddle your meter Trev


----------



## Nabsim

It doesn’t alter the fact if you don’t have a drive or able to park your vehicle on your land you can’t charge it at home. I live in the sticks, there are ten cottages going up the hill then 6 across the top. Two across the top are new builds with a small driveway. The other 14 houses would be unable to charge. Add to that because it is in the sticks with rare and erratic public transport most residents have two cars. How would these work with current technology for ev’s?
I have also mentioned before people living in flats, they can’t charge at home. Elon Musk has done lots of work and is going to be a lot richer before much longer, not through Tesla cars but by his solar/electricity storage banks. Very forward thinking and he can provide what councils/city’s/governments need but it still doesn’t get it to a lot of end users.
It either needs hydrogen that you can just pull up and fill tank then move on again just like fossil fuel or an easily replaceable fuel cell that charges the battery bank onboard.
As to health risks in city’s then that’s simple, block off the roads and stop all private vehicle access. City’s should already have the infrastructure to move people quickly and efficiently with electric trams, busses and trains. Should I say as they are all thinking about the environment and health of the people who pay them. Of course they will have lots of excuses as to why they haven’t got that infrastructure but never mind, come 2032 or 2035 if will magically be okay. Lol


----------



## in h

Martin P said:


> Anybody here got an ev over 5 years old?
> How are the batteries doing.?


We have three electric bikes. The oldest is ten years old this year. Still on its original battery, which appears to be as good as new. Though it could lose 10% of its capacity and I'd not notice, because it can manage longer distances than I can.


----------



## Tonybvi

That guy Musk (love him or loathe him) has his head screwed on right.  One of the stories I was told and I apologise for not remembering the precise details, was that either NZ or Australian authorities wanted bids for a huge solar battery storage facility.  Included in Musks bid, which was not the cheapest, was that he would provide it for  free if it wasn’t completed by the requested date.  Guess who was awarded the contract and guess who met the deadline!!


----------



## Nabsim

Yes I think he us great, always been cutting edge, he has a fully functioning space port built with a consortium I think in Arizona, has a training station for living on Mars in the desert as well.
Just hope he isn’t too good and ends up the victim of skullduggery as he is seen as a threat by US government now.
That’s the sort of guy who should be sorting things out


----------



## Martin P

A


----------



## trevskoda

In about 20 years time it will not bother me caus if im alive il be in the old folks home getting abused and feed on black bananas and cold weak tea.


----------



## Chris356

I have been working on some mobile filling stations they are 45 ton trailers for refuelling trucks that run on cng compressed natural gas and renewable biomethane not sure what’s involved to convert your van but about 20 years ago a guy ran his frontera diesel with a lpg bottle in the boot plumbed in with a valve connected to the throttle pedal


----------



## trevskoda

Chris356 said:


> I have been working on some mobile filling stations they are 45 ton trailers for refuelling trucks that run on cng compressed natural gas and renewable biomethane not sure what’s involved to convert your van but about 20 years ago a guy ran his frontera diesel with a lpg bottle in the boot plumbed in with a valve connected to the throttle pedal


You can add some gas to a diesel engine,think a small amount but its done in the USA to save on long runs,30% springs to mind.


----------



## Martin P

My only experience with lithium batterys is with the cordless tools I use. My old Ni cads used to tail off after about 3 years but the lithiums seem to come to a more abrupt end after 2 and a half to 3 years
The batteries are always charged daily so around 1000 charging cycles seems to be about the norm.
Would be interested to know how a cordless tool ( makita) lithium battery differs from ev technology


----------



## Asterix

Martin P said:


> My only experience with lithium batterys is with the cordless tools I use. My old Ni cads used to tail off after about 3 years but the lithiums seem to come to a more abrupt end after 2 and a half to 3 years
> The batteries are always charged daily so around 1000 charging cycles seems to be about the norm.
> Would be interested to know how a cordless tool ( makita) lithium battery differs from ev technology



I'm no expert but I suspect it's the battery management systems in cars.


----------



## runnach

I think the ultimate solution to ditching fossil fuels or at least using minimal amounts is a multi renewable fuel type arrangement that embraces mixed technology for example regenerative braking , solar power and wind.....so far concentration has been on the vehicles but what about the surfaces they run on? Solar roads offer an opportunity the rolling resistance of tyres generating electricity, the employment of magnet motors that is enjoying some success in Japan 

We have to remember all emerging technology some will fall by the wayside, but where were ice engines in the early days? Look how information technology has progressed over the last 30 years, when a 1 mb bbc computer was state of the art...I am optimistic for the future,just wish I was bright enough to help solve the conundrum


----------



## Deleted member 47550

I designed a house about 5 years ago for a chap we called 'the nutty professor'. A retired electrical engineer hell bent on making a home fully sustainable and he'd spent 5 years working it all out and writing computer programmes to prove his own point. He was retired, had no family apart from an elderly sister and wanted to prove a point - and he did.

The house looks no different really to a chalet style house but it couldn't be more different and took 2 years to complete. Normal building costs for this 190 sq m floor area would have typically been around £300,000 but this when completed was nearer £700,000 but to him that didn't matter; it was how it worked. While the builder kept asking if he could use different materials that were cheaper we kept to our guns and said NO. House walls are 390mm thick (typical now 300mm) , solid ground floor thickness was around 450mm (typical normal construction is around 300mm), roof insulation above, between and under rafters was 300mm rigid. Windows quad glazed with max 18mm air spaces and external doors 68 thick. Energy supply was from solar panels in the tiles, a small wind turbine, air source and ground source heat pumps as well as water source from rainwater - battery banks to store excess electricity for night use! Grey water washing etc and it went on.............................. up shot of all this is when commissioned he was literally self-sufficient. Needless to say this retired Plessey Communications engineer had all manner of electrical wizardry going on. When I visited after 3 months (after he'd resolved all his bugs etc) I walked in and lights come on auto (quite normal nowadays) and imediately you felt a slight air movement - the heating/cooling system had noticed a change in atmosphere and turned heating on but within seconds it had shut down and then you were aware of a slight air movement - it had detected the temperature had risen - body heat from me..................basically it was keeping the place precisely at 20 deg. I couldn't really believe how things worked but I was truly amazed. He received a letter from electricity board requesting they visit to check his meter as it was reading wrong..................... he wasn't actually using any!!!!!! The only thing he paid for was water (he had a hi-tech package treatment plant for sewerage) and internet - truly amazing and when he's gone (he's in his 80's now) I'd be the first wanting to buy that house!!!


----------



## mariesnowgoose

@Geeky Philip - we still need a wow button, sir!


----------



## campervanannie

COPIED FROM ANOTHER SITE.

Electric cars? I have been following developments closely. A few pointers:
1) Get the name right. They’re not electric cars, they are coal-powered cars. Some might be nuclear,  eventually all might be. The electricity has to come from somewhere.
2) They cost the planet an arm and a leg to make. They use rare earth elements in their batteries. We have only 50 years worth left of lithium on current production. Worrying for people with bi-polar disorder who need it for medication.
3) We don’t know how to fix them. Really! The highest qualification in the UK only touches briefly on hybrid vehicles. Unbelievably, there is no current qualification available for pure electric vehicles on any City and Guilds course in the UK!
4) We can’t train the new generation of ‘technicians’ (new-speak for ‘mechanics’), as the handful of manufacturers developing coal-powered cars jealously guard their secrets and each are developing slightly different systems. So if you are one of the few apprentices lucky enough to be trained by a manufacturer, your skills are not transferable to other makes. 
5) This marks the end for the bloke on the corner who fixes everyone’s vehicles. Cos hey, we want to regulate everything right? And drive motorists into the greedy arms of the dealerships who currently seem to charge more on ‘trad’ vehicles. God help us all when they find they have no competition. Prices will soar.
6) We are not training youngsters to work on these new coal-powered vehicles in academic establishments. We are not future-proofing these kids careers. They are even now still being trained to work on petrol and diesel vehicles. One college was given an electric car by the manufacturer, but without the repair manual, (due to the desire to protect industrial secrets). As these cars can kill unskilled ‘tinkerers’ the staff, understandably, did not allow the students to work upon the vehicle. It has sat there untouched for a number of years.
7) Manufacturer assume that with only around 22 parts in the drive train, (compared to a few thou in the ‘trad’ vehicle), their coal powered cars are less likely to break down. But what about the ‘Friday cars?’ We have all heard of them, thrown together at the end of a long week that carry ‘teething troubles’ from day one of their miserable lives. What if you get saddled with one of them?
8) If we’re not gearing up to repair them now, what will happen when we all have them - how long will we have to wait in a very long queue for repairs?
9) How do we safely break them up at end of life if they are so dangerous to work on?
10) Cars are made, they get refueled and driven, they get repaired, they are broken up and recycled. If we haven’t got the most basic infrastructure worked out for the latter stages, we are mindlessly swapping one headache for another. 
I’m not encouraging people to drive anything. I’m trying to get them to think about the bigger picture. As a country we are not prepared - or even preparing - for an electric vehicle revolution. It’s just the government paying lip service to environmental concerns. If they really meant it then the announcement would have been accompanied by solid investment in the infrastructure. But it didn’t. I’m just saying ‘Look! The emperor has no clothes...!’


----------



## Jayg

We built our house in 2011.
Cost around £100000 
We installed 3.75 kw of solar panels.
Our export electricity meter shows over the year the same as the import electric meter.
All heating, hot water and cooking electric.
The house faces south, earth sheltered with a envelope of 300mm insulation.
It’s internal dimensions are 21 meters long by 6 meters deep.
The conservatory on the front is 21 meters long by 3 meters deep.
This house was the easiest I have ever constructed.
No windows on the three sides just plain concrete Blocks.
The walls are 440mm concrete blocks 300mm floor, 300mm roof.
Double glazed to the conservatory.
Double glazed to the exterior from the conservatory.
Air change system.
Heating cycle of four months of the year at £100 per month inclusive.
This method has been around for decades.
It’s just we don’t look.
And we are in Scotland.


----------



## mark61

Rich Rebuilds has learnt a thing or two about fixing Tesla's. Blooming amazing really. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA


----------



## in h

campervanannie said:


> COPIED FROM ANOTHER SITE.
> 
> Electric cars? I have been following developments closely. A few pointers:
> 1) Get the name right. They’re not electric cars, they are coal-powered cars. Some might be nuclear,  eventually all might be. The electricity has to come from somewhere.


https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ gives the facts. Coal powers less than 3% of UK power. We went more than a month this year without using ANY coal power at all.  Wind and solar and nuclear provide a fair amount, and most of the rest comes from gas.


> 2) They cost the planet an arm and a leg to make. They use rare earth elements in their batteries. We have only 50 years worth left of lithium on current production. Worrying for people with bi-polar disorder who need it for medication.



Just as untrue.





> 3) We don’t know how to fix them. Really! The highest qualification in the UK only touches briefly on hybrid vehicles. Unbelievably, there is no current qualification available for pure electric vehicles on any City and Guilds course in the UK!


There is no shortage of electric car technicians. Because they are simpler and more reliable, they need less maintenance. The most reliable car on the road is the Nissan Leaf.


> 4) We can’t train the new generation of ‘technicians’ (new-speak for ‘mechanics’), as the handful of manufacturers developing coal-powered cars jealously guard their secrets and each are developing slightly different systems. So if you are one of the few apprentices lucky enough to be trained by a manufacturer, your skills are not transferable to other makes.


More untruth.


> 5) This marks the end for the bloke on the corner who fixes everyone’s vehicles. Cos hey, we want to regulate everything right? And drive motorists into the greedy arms of the dealerships who currently seem to charge more on ‘trad’ vehicles. God help us all when they find they have no competition. Prices will soar.


That's true. It happened decades ago.


> 6) We are not training youngsters to work on these new coal-powered vehicles in academic establishments. We are not future-proofing these kids careers. They are even now still being trained to work on petrol and diesel vehicles. One college was given an electric car by the manufacturer, but without the repair manual, (due to the desire to protect industrial secrets). As these cars can kill unskilled ‘tinkerers’ the staff, understandably, did not allow the students to work upon the vehicle. It has sat there untouched for a number of years.


I don't believe that either.





> 7) Manufacturer assume that with only around 22 parts in the drive train, (compared to a few thou in the ‘trad’ vehicle), their coal powered cars are less likely to break down. But what about the ‘Friday cars?’ We have all heard of them, thrown together at the end of a long week that carry ‘teething troubles’ from day one of their miserable lives. What if you get saddled with one of them?


They are made by robots, with quality systems using SPC. 





> 8) If we’re not gearing up to repair them now, what will happen when we all have them - how long will we have to wait in a very long queue for repairs?


Until cars go wrong, what will this army of repairers do?





> 9) How do we safely break them up at end of life if they are so dangerous to work on?


Nobody said they are dangerous to work on.





> 10) Cars are made, they get refueled and driven, they get repaired, they are broken up and recycled. If we haven’t got the most basic infrastructure worked out for the latter stages, we are mindlessly swapping one headache for another.
> I’m not encouraging people to drive anything. I’m trying to get them to think about the bigger picture. As a country we are not prepared - or even preparing - for an electric vehicle revolution. It’s just the government paying lip service to environmental concerns. If they really meant it then the announcement would have been accompanied by solid investment in the infrastructure. But it didn’t. I’m just saying ‘Look! The emperor has no clothes...!’



I'm not sure what other site published this sort of outdated, ill-informed guff, but you really should start reading better sources of information.
The reality is that the infrastructure is not yet in place to support a widespread change to electric cars. They do nothing for traffic congestion, they make tyre dust pollution worse, they lack catalysts and filters that clean up other vehicles' exhaust.
But the main objection is that any sort of private car is a daft idea. They undermine the viability of public transport, they have to be parked most of the time and they clog up our lives. We really do deserve better.


----------



## campervanannie

in h said:


> https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ gives the facts. Coal powers less than 3% of UK power. We went more than a month this year without using ANY coal power at all.  Wind and solar and nuclear provide a fair amount, and most of the rest comes from gas.
> 
> 
> Just as untrue.
> There is no shortage of electric car technicians. Because they are simpler and more reliable, they need less maintenance. The most reliable car on the road is the Nissan Leaf.
> More untruth.
> 
> That's true. It happened decades ago.
> I don't believe that either.They are made by robots, with quality systems using SPC. Until cars go wrong, what will this army of repairers do?Nobody said they are dangerous to work on.
> 
> I'm not sure what other site published this sort of outdated, ill-informed guff, but you really should start reading better sources of information.
> The reality is that the infrastructure is not yet in place to support a widespread change to electric cars. They do nothing for traffic congestion, they make tyre dust pollution worse, they lack catalysts and filters that clean up other vehicles' exhaust.
> But the main objection is that any sort of private car is a daft idea. They undermine the viability of public transport, they have to be parked most of the time and they clog up our lives. We really do deserve better.


Well I’ll go stand In the naughty corner for posting outdated ill-informed guff but to be fair I never said it was fact I just said I copied it from another forum, but there again how do I know your comments aren’t guff.


----------



## landoboguy

Semi | Tesla United Kingdom
					

Tesla Semi is a fully electric semi truck with active safety features, massive range and a spacious interior designed for maximum visibility.




					www.tesla.com
				



oh yeah, look good wi Stobarts on the side


----------



## in h

campervanannie said:


> Well I’ll go stand In the naughty corner for posting outdated ill-informed guff but to be fair I never said it was fact I just said I copied it from another forum, but there again how do I know your comments aren’t guff.


You don't!


----------



## Fisherman

When the first horseless carriage took the road in Stuttgart in 1886 we were told that they would  never take off, and the horse was king. The luddites lined up to vilify what we all now drive.
Now we have reached a time when changes that should have taken place decades ago are just around the corner. Changes that were held back because of the oil lobbies from the multi national oil companies.
And within 10 years you will not only start to see more and more electric cars, cars that will be better than what is available today, you will see a massive growth in infrastructure.
You will also start to see driverless cars on our roads.

And what is driving this not only global warming, and pollution but evolution.

Anyone who thinks that the internal combustion engine will be around forever would have betted the horse would win in 1886.

I got my first mobile phone in 1993 all I heard was what do you need one of them for. Now 95% of us use mobile phones.
Remember the first microwaves that apparently caused cancer, and never took of.


All of the arguments put up against EVCS, all of the arguments over infrastructure will disappear, and possibly someone will take a look at this thread and other threads on other forums and wonder, what was all the fuss about.


----------



## Fazerloz

in h said:


> https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ gives the facts. Coal powers less than 3% of UK power. We went more than a month this year without using ANY coal power at all.  Wind and solar and nuclear provide a fair amount, and most of the rest comes from gas.



Dont forget the power we import from abroad as well.
I took Annies reference to coal more as a generic term for shall i say as something some see as not exactly green or renewable.  Yet if we choose to look at our nice green renewables no one ever seems to mention BIO MASS that is shipped across the wold at great cost to be burnt in converted coal fired power stations producing 8% more CO2. than coal.
Simply because it ticks a box.
This might open some eyes but there again there are non so blind as those that don't want to see. One Power Station DRAX. Read this its just pure lunacy, Especially for those that seem so concerned about CO2








						'Renewable' biomass energy accused of causing deforestation in the US
					

The UK biomass energy industry faces criticism over its dependency on stripping US forests to seek out its supply of wood pellets




					inews.co.uk


----------



## in h

Fazerloz said:


> Dont forget the power we import from abroad as well.
> I took Annies reference to coal more as a generic term for shall i say as something some see as not exactly green or renewable.  Yet if we choose to look at our nice green renewables no one ever seems to mention BIO MASS that is shipped across the wold at great cost to be burnt in converted coal fired power stations producing 8% more CO2. than coal.
> Simply because it ticks a box.
> This might open some eyes but there again there are non so blind as those that don't want to see. One Power Station DRAX. Read this its just pure lunacy, Especially for those that seem so concerned about CO2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Renewable' biomass energy accused of causing deforestation in the US
> 
> 
> The UK biomass energy industry faces criticism over its dependency on stripping US forests to seek out its supply of wood pellets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inews.co.uk


ALL the inputs are shown on the Gridwatch page, including power imported and power from burning wood pellets at Drax. Updated 24/7


----------



## runnach

Thr guardian show Drax in a different light, an interesting read https://www.theguardian.com/busines...r-plans-worlds-first-carbon-negative-business


----------



## in h

channa said:


> Thr guardian show Drax in a different light, an interesting read https://www.theguardian.com/busines...r-plans-worlds-first-carbon-negative-business


I'm not sure that the carbon capture really worked. The while thing is a way to get renewables subsidy for burning wood pellets imported from overseas. 
I have a feeling that the EU refuses to consider the Drax biomass plant as green and/or renewable, but that is just a vague recollection.


----------



## Mikebike

izwozral said:


> "New *petrol* and *diesel* cars *banned* from *2035*. A *ban* on selling new *petrol* and *diesel* cars will be brought forward by five years to improve air quality, the prime minister will announce today. Boris Johnson will say that the sale of new combustion engine cars and vans will end in *2035* rather than 2040."
> 
> Don't panic, don't panic, no mention of MH's or vans or lorries.
> 
> That's alright then?


Could they produce enough electricity to keep all the vehicles charged?


----------



## Fisherman

Mikebike said:


> Could they produce enough electricity to keep all the vehicles charged?



Yes, this has been looked at and by the 2030s renewables will have twice the capacity it currently has. The largest hurdles are, providing better infra structure, and improving battery technology. It’s not reckoned that EVCS will outnumber petrol and diesel till the 40s. Petrol and diesel will be around till the 60s, but in much reduced numbers.


----------



## ricc

Fisherman said:


> Yes, this has been looked at and by the 2030s renewables will have twice the capacity it currently has. The largest hurdles are, providing better infra structure, and improving battery technology. It’s not reckoned that EVCS will outnumber petrol and diesel till the 40s. Petrol and diesel will be around till the 60s, but in much reduced numbers.


if renewables have got the whole leccy car thing in hand why is there a new nucleur plant being built on the somerset coast?


----------



## Fisherman

ricc said:


> if renewables have got the whole leccy car thing in hand why is there a new nucleur plant being built on the somerset coast?



Sorry where did I say that renewables have anything in hand.
Currently unless we build new nuclear power stations in the next few years with or without EVS the lights may go out. We have decommissioned many coal fired stations and have not replaced their output. The building of a nuclear power station in Somerset would go ahead if we continued the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles or not.


----------



## in h

I'm not convinced that everyone will switch to electtrric vehicles. Hydrogen or LPG powered engines aren't being banned.
The trouble with EVs is the small amount of energy they store. 
An electric car will probably have a battery capacity of 65kWh. You get that much stored energy in less than 4.75Kg of LPG, or about six litres of diesel. Should you buy a vehicle with a fuel tank that small?


----------



## Asterix

in h said:


> I'm not convinced that everyone will switch to electtrric vehicles. Hydrogen or LPG powered engines aren't being banned.
> The trouble with EVs is the small amount of energy they store.
> An electric car will probably have a battery capacity of 65kWh. You get that much stored energy in less than 4.75Kg of LPG, or about six litres of diesel. Should you buy a vehicle with a fuel tank that small?



For most people a full charge would last a week for commuting, shops,school run etc,it may not make sense if you're a travelling salesman,but I'd think most people would rather have lower fuel and maintenance costs. It can't  be forgotten that battery tech is getting incrementally better all the time,Tesla have once again upped their range,now well in excess of 300 miles on some models. 









						Tesla Model 3 gets 350 miles in new 'long-range mode' test
					

CEO Elon Musk congratulated the Tesla team after the Model 3 got 350 miles of range on a single charge in a new test on range mode. Officially, Tesla Model 3 Long Range had a range of 310 miles on a single charge, but Tesla has found some optimizations in recent months — leading to […]




					electrek.co


----------



## Fisherman

in h said:


> I'm not convinced that everyone will switch to electtrric vehicles. Hydrogen or LPG powered engines aren't being banned.
> The trouble with EVs is the small amount of energy they store.
> An electric car will probably have a battery capacity of 65kWh. You get that much stored energy in less than 4.75Kg of LPG, or about six litres of diesel. Should you buy a vehicle with a fuel tank that small?



Of course not everyone will switch.
We have to stop discussing this as if in 2035 suddenly we will all be driving Teslas, and there will be no improvements to infrastructure and battery and engine technology.  By that time there will be a lot more of them on the roads and the infrastructure will be much better than it is today. Also as Asterix points out battery technology will be much better.
By 2035 possibly one third of the cars on the roads will be electric, and gradually over the following couple of decades, battery and engine technology will further improve and so will infrastructure, leading to the vast majority of cars being electric.  Most of us sadly won’t see this, and to a great extent these changes will never affect us.


----------



## Fazerloz

Asterix said:


> For most people a full charge would last a week for commuting, shops,school run etc,it may not make sense if you're a travelling salesman,but I'd think most people would rather have lower fuel and maintenance costs. It can't  be forgotten that battery tech is getting incrementally better all the time,Tesla have once again upped their range,now well in excess of 300 miles on some models.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla Model 3 gets 350 miles in new 'long-range mode' test
> 
> 
> CEO Elon Musk congratulated the Tesla team after the Model 3 got 350 miles of range on a single charge in a new test on range mode. Officially, Tesla Model 3 Long Range had a range of 310 miles on a single charge, but Tesla has found some optimizations in recent months — leading to […]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electrek.co



I bet most people would be very happy if they could even afford a Tesla at nearly £40,000. Maybe the Government should buy us all one. Job done then. It would be cheaper than what has already been spent on Crossrail which will benefit relatively few people in this country. But then it is for London so price seems to be no object.


----------



## Tonybvi

Although I have a Tesla Model X and love it we have to be a little bit aware of the stated range.   My car has an EPA range of 327 miles (rumoured to be increased to 351 miles via a software update?!) and a WLTP (UK Standard) of 314 miles.  However this is in absolutely ideal conditions.  To play safe I use max 300 miles for summer use and 250 miles in winter.  On top of this it is not recommended to charge regularly above about 90% unless you intend to drive immediately.  Then I feel pretty uncomfortable if the battery starts heading below 10%.  So effectively in winter I really only have 80% of 250 miles - 200 miles.  Still plenty good enough for me but the EV quoted ranges are no better than an ICE vehicle mpg figures!!


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> I bet most people would be very happy if they could even afford a Tesla at nearly £40,000. Maybe the Government should buy us all one. Job done then. It would be cheaper than what has already been spent on Crossrail which will benefit relatively few people in this country. But then it is for London so price seems to be no object.



You don’t need to spend £40,000 and they will get cheaper.
Also plenty of diesel cars are currently around that price.
This is a developing situation, and things will develop.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> You don’t need to spend £40,000 and they will get cheaper.
> Also plenty of diesel cars are currently around that price.
> This is a developing situation, and things will develop.


I was responding to a post about new Tesla cars.  Diesel, Electric or whatever my comment on most people still stands. You have no proof they will get cheaper that is just a assumption. Have any manufacturer stated there will be a price reduction. It wouldn't be the first time the public has been held to ransom and this country has long been known as Treasure island to the auto companies.


----------



## TeamRienza

Given my age and expected lifespan, I don’t see that I will join the move to electric in the foreseeable future. Probably a major factor is available capital to upgrade. My normal vehicle history has been to buy older cars within my means. i look forward to seeing how the secondhand market and lifespan of batteries develop.

My biggest concern is that in order to force the pace of change, government will start to tax fuel in ever increasing amounts in order to virtue signal their achievements in cutting emissions. 

Davy


----------



## trevskoda

Dont think you will be able to buy electric cars at auction for £100 with a years test,many here do as they bin them at the end of year,as for farmers i dont see any of them buying a 40 grand car to carry the odd sheep in back seats like they do with the £100 jobs.


----------



## Fazerloz

TeamRienza said:


> Given my age and expected lifespan, I don’t see that I will join the move to electric in the foreseeable future. Probably a major factor is available capital to upgrade. My normal vehicle history has been to buy older cars within my means. i look forward to seeing how the secondhand market and lifespan of batteries develop.
> 
> My biggest concern is that in order to force the pace of change, government will start to tax fuel in ever increasing amounts in order to virtue signal their achievements in cutting emissions.
> 
> Davy



That's how they usually do it and as usual it will be the lower paid who will suffer most.


----------



## Asterix

Fazerloz said:


> I bet most people would be very happy if they could even afford a Tesla at nearly £40,000. Maybe the Government should buy us all one. Job done then. It would be cheaper than what has already been spent on Crossrail which will benefit relatively few people in this country. But then it is for London so price seems to be no object.



Economies of scale will kick in and those that can afford a new Tesla every few years will start contributing to the second hand market so what may not be affordable now,will be within the reach of many mid range buyers in just a few years. There's plenty of other brands coming on the market now and they will also help bring prices down.
The best thing about Tesla is the supply chain,it will bring an end to forecourt dealers that have been gouging the public since the model T started it all.
Ultimately the higher prices that current models demand,will easily be offset with low cost electricity and zero maintenance,so in the short term your bank account will take a hit,but longer term ownership will make it much cheaper to own an EV.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> I was responding to a post about new Tesla cars.  Diesel, Electric or whatever my comment on most people still stands. You have no proof they will get cheaper that is just a assumption. Have any manufacturer stated there will be a price reduction. It wouldn't be the first time the public has been held to ransom and this country has long been known as Treasure island to the auto companies.



And you don't have any proof about anything being posted on here, no one has Faze.
But history shows that any new innovations are most expensive at first.
Once demand increases which it will, once technology improves which it will they will get cheaper.
They have to be affordable for this to work.


----------



## Fazerloz

I don't see there been a big market for 10 year old EVs and the cost of battery replacement.


----------



## runnach

Asterix said:


> Economies of scale will kick in and those that can afford a new Tesla every few years will start contributing to the second hand market so what may not be affordable now,will be within the reach of many mid range buyers in just a few years. There's plenty of other brands coming on the market now and they will also help bring prices down.
> The best thing about Tesla is the supply chain,it will bring an end to forecourt dealers that have been gouging the public since the model T started it all.
> Ultimately the higher prices that current models demand,will easily be offset with low cost electricity and zero maintenance,so in the short term your bank account will take a hit,but longer term ownership will make it much cheaper to own an EV.


Tesla are at present in a unique situation as to how they market. Similar methods have been tried jam jar,Asda drive, as retailers daewoo and Saturn the states motor manufacturers controlling distribution of petrol/diesels all without exception have failed. When block exemption rules were abolished that should and intended to create a free market but the trading practice of manufacturers quickly prevented that,,,,as for gouging folks eyes out th3 only winners are the manufacturers not customers or dealers


----------



## Asterix

channa said:


> Tesla are at present in a unique situation as to how they market. Similar methods have been tried jam jar,Asda drive, as retailers daewoo and Saturn the states motor manufacturers controlling distribution of petrol/diesels all without exception have failed. When block exemption rules were abolished that should and intended to create a free market but the trading practice of manufacturers quickly prevented that,,,,as for gouging folks eyes out th3 only winners are the manufacturers not customers or dealers



Interesting clip,other auto makers will have to follow if they want to remain competitive.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> And you don't have any proof about anything being posted on here, no one has Faze.
> But history shows that any new innovations are most expensive at first.
> Once demand increases which it will, once technology improves which it will they will get cheaper.
> They have to be affordable for this to work.


 
For many years BMW said there cars were artificially dear, stating it would be easy to produce far more cars and reduce price but it was policy to keep production relatively low and prices high and for the cars to seem more exclusive and desirable.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> For many years BMW said there cars were artificially dear, stating it would be easy to produce far more cars and reduce price but it was policy to keep production relatively low and prices high and for the cars to seem more exclusive and desirable.



Faze first and foremost.
You and I will probably never by an electric car, but if we do it will be through choice. Get used to the fact that at some point this century non fossil fuel cars will take over. You can try to put as many arguments as you like against them, but inevitably this is were we are heading. Things will change, snd human evolution will supply the demand. The sooner we all get used to the idea the better.
Also in our lifetimes we will probably see driverless cars and lorries.
5G is just around the corner and 6G will surely follow.


----------



## GreggBear

Fisherman said:


> You don’t need to spend £40,000 and they will get cheaper.
> Also plenty of diesel cars are currently around that price.
> This is a developing situation, and things will develop.


Thing is you can buy a used diesel car for a few hundred quid. Electric cars won't be that accessible to the man with little money for a long time, if at all....


----------



## Ocean1ot1on

So we may we’ll still have our diesel motorhomes but will there be any garages selling diesel??? - I get the feeling that as fewer and fewer cars need diesel then garages won’t bother with it - bit like LPG.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Faze first and foremost.
> You and I will probably never by an electric car, but if we do it will be through choice. Get used to the fact that at some point this century non fossil fuel cars will take over. You can try to put as many arguments as you like against them, but inevitably this is were we are heading. Things will change, snd human evolution will supply the demand. The sooner we all get used to the idea the better.
> Also in our lifetimes we will probably see driverless cars and lorries.
> 5G is just around the corner and 6G will surely follow.



I am sure you are right and this is the way we are heading but one thing i will not get used to is been screwed over by lying politicians and the like in the name of money. Which i think is the driving force of all this.


----------



## runnach

Asterix said:


> Interesting clip,other auto makers will have to follow if they want to remain competitive.


Full of half truths , under the existing system as I mentioned Saturn in the us daewoo in the uk tried musks model both failed, is far from disruptive, direct line via rbs tried retailing online , it failed people want to see and touch it isn’t like buying an insurance policy...equally the set up in the states is totally different to the uk I spent time working for a major dealer group who had us presecence with jlr and Bentley product the markets chalk and cheese in just about anyway you want to measure

I find some of what Tesla are doing very innovative like software upgrades remotely relatively recent technology has made that possible. Lexus just launched a hybrid, traditional network and enjoy the highest customer ratings in the states namely jd power surveys.tesla to press have had limited market threats as Toyota and Lexus Nissan etc become more involved that will disrupt their business model


----------



## Fazerloz

runnach said:


> An unique way to to show carbon dioxide emissions by each country. You can view figures easier if you save image, then expand for a better view.View attachment 76855



Some interesting ones on there compared to UKs position.


----------



## trevskoda

Fisherman said:


> And you don't have any proof about anything being posted on here, no one has Faze.
> But history shows that any new innovations are most expensive at first.
> Once demand increases which it will, once technology improves which it will they will get cheaper.
> They have to be affordable for this to work.


No they wont,prices will be up for new petrols & diesels to match electric,so in fact most will change over,the gov will work it in there fav, not yours.


----------



## trevskoda

Never saw a tesla here but many nissan leaf and one or two beemers,there is one charging point for tesla in ballymena castle grounds for council and thats all i have seen but prob more if i bother looking,red diesel is everywhere,for tractors of course,


----------



## in h

There are lots of electric cars on the market, but they all seem incredibly expensive. You pay for a car way, way upmarket from what you get. 
A Tesla is a brave choice because of the lack of dealerships, spare parts supply and general complexity leading to unreliability and high insurance premiums. They seem to get a lot of miles from each charge, though. There are plenty of less well publicised alternatives.
A neighbour has a Leaf, which seems a reasonable little car, but in the Pennines in winter, he doesn't get half the mileage it is supposed to. He also has a hybrid for anything more than a shipping trip.


----------



## Fisherman

GreggBear said:


> Thing is you can buy a used diesel car for a few hundred quid. Electric cars won't be that accessible to the man with little money for a long time, if at all....



Gregg, If electric cars and vans are never affordable to the public, just think what that would do to our economy.
They will become affordable, they simply have too.


----------



## in h

Fazerloz said:


> I don't see there been a big market for 10 year old EVs and the cost of battery replacement.


I think there will be a huge market for secondhand EVs. A bit like secondhand motorhomes, in fact.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> I am sure you are right and this is the way we are heading but one thing i will not get used to is been screwed over by lying politicians and the like in the name of money. Which i think is the driving force of all this.



Faz, we are being screwed right now.
When you buy a car you get charged VAT, if the car retails at £40,000 or more, you pay £2135 road tax first year. When you go to the filling station you pay VAT on tax, and 80% of what you pay is tax. Then we have speeding fines, parking fines, the list is endless.


----------



## GreggBear

Fisherman said:


> Gregg, If electric cars and vans are never affordable to the public, just think what that would do to our economy.
> They will become affordable, they simply have too.


Point I was making is, your average electric car will probably scrap at 3 times what I paid for my van. Too many salvageable components to make it affordable to the likes of me. By the time I factor all my other running costs in, I can't afford a nice motor. Problem is my limited mobility, if I don't have access to very cheap vehicles I can't get out at all. Glad I'm gonna be dust in the wind before my hand is forced completely.....


----------



## Fazerloz

in h said:


> nt
> I think there will be a huge market for secondhand EVs. A bit like secondhand motorhomes, in fact.



It is far from simple to change the batteries on most EVs and who's to say software support will be available in 10 years time. Who knows it might be already programmed to fail in x amount of years. It's not in a manufacturers interest to make a vehicle last forever. Tesla already turn off remotely some features on second hand cars.








						Tesla remotely disables Autopilot on used Model S after it was sold
					

Tesla claims it can yank features from even used cars




					www.theverge.com


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Faz, we are being screwed right now.
> When you buy a car you get charged VAT, if the car retails at £40,000 or more, you pay £2135 road tax first year. When you go to the filling station you pay VAT on tax, and 80% of what you pay is tax. Then we have speeding fines, parking fines, the list is endless.



Do you really think i don't know any of this. I try now to never buy from a dealer and only buy second hand let someone else pay the tax. Fuel i can do nothing about. But none of it means i have to buy into what i consider to be the latest set of lies about the reason for EVs.
I will thank you though as over the last couple of weeks i have done a awful lot of reading on so called Global Warming. Its a pity 1% of the money spent on shoving what i now consider to be lies on global warming isn't spent on cleaning plastic from the seas or supplying clean water for people to drink.


----------



## in h

Fisherman said:


> Faz, we are being screwed right now.
> When you buy a car you get charged VAT, if the car retails at £40,000 or more, you pay £2135 road tax first year. When you go to the filling station you pay VAT on tax, and 80% of what you pay is tax. Then we have speeding fines, parking fines, the list is endless.


Parking fines and speeding fines are opt-in. You don't have to pay them. Cars don't pay enough tax to compensate for the social and environmental damage they do.


----------



## in h

T


Fazerloz said:


> It is far from simple to change the batteries on most EVs and who's to say software support will be available in 10 years time. Who knows it might be already programmed to fail in x amount of years. It's not in a manufacturers interest to make a vehicle last forever. Tesla already turn off remotely some features on second hand cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla remotely disables Autopilot on used Model S after it was sold
> 
> 
> Tesla claims it can yank features from even used cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theverge.com


Tesla is not a good example of anything except an effective swindle, but they assert that the self-driving facility is sold to the person and is not part of the car. I'm not convinced that would be acceptable to a UK court, but in the Land of the Free Corporation, they can get away with what they like.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> Do you really think i don't know any of this. I try now to never buy from a dealer and only buy second hand let someone else pay the tax. Fuel i can do nothing about. But none of it means i have to buy into what i consider to be the latest set of lies about the reason for EVs.
> I will thank you though as over the last couple of weeks i have done a awful lot of reading on so called Global Warming. Its a pity 1% of the money spent on shoving what i now consider to be lies on global warming isn't spent on cleaning plastic from the seas or supplying clean water for people to drink.



Well if you are sure that global warming is a myth I can see were you are coming from.


----------



## Fisherman

in h said:


> Parking fines and speeding fines are opt-in. You don't have to pay them. Cars don't pay enough tax to compensate for the social and environmental damage they do.



So you reckon we are not paying enough tax.
And we don’t have to pay speeding fines and parking fines.
I only wish I had read this before paying them in the past.


----------



## Asterix

in h said:


> T
> 
> Tesla is not a good example of anything except an effective swindle, but they assert that the self-driving facility is sold to the person and is not part of the car. I'm not convinced that would be acceptable to a UK court, but in the Land of the Free Corporation, they can get away with what they like.



I think Tesla are unique in that they aren't a car company as such,but rather a tech company first and foremost,that just happen to make cars. Think of it like buying a second hand computer,it's most likely had all the software wiped,so you go out and buy the software that meets your requirements. That's the way I look at it anyway.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Well if you are sure that global warming is a myth I can see were you are coming from.



I am not saying GW is a myth. GW is happening and always has in cycles, but not how or certainly not to the extent that the powers that be, would like to have us believe. There is a difference.


----------



## Fisherman

runnach said:


> Naughty boy!



Let he who has never sinned be  cast the first stone


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> I am not saying GW is a myth. GW is happening and always has in cycles, but not how or certainly not to the extent that the powers that be, would like to have us believe. There is a difference.



I think you know what I meant Faz.
We all know that without it the average temp would be minus 19C.
And the powers at be worldwide, are being guided by scientists.
But you don't believe thats fine.


----------



## Robmac

Fazerloz said:


> I am not saying GW is a myth. GW is happening and always has in cycles, but not how or certainly not to the extent that the powers that be, would like to have us believe. There is a difference.



I am starting to think this way too.

If the Earth is in so much danger because of ICE's why do the governments only pay lip service to preventing the problems.

If we are in danger of being wiped out as a species (or heading that way), surely manufacturers wouldn't be allowed to make gas guzzling supercars that do 3 times the legal speed limit? And that's only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Lefty

So we all have electric cars powered by power stations, wind and sun. It’s all a big con. The technology is there to run on hydrogen produced from guess what, water. All the developments have been bought up and shut down by the oil companies.


----------



## Fazerloz

Asterix said:


> I think Tesla are unique in that they aren't a car company as such,but rather a tech company first and foremost,that just happen to make cars. Think of it like buying a second hand computer,it's most likely had all the software wiped,so you go out and buy the software that meets your requirements. That's the way I look at it anyway.



Just one factory. Not too shabby for not a car company.








						Tesla’s Chinese factory just delivered its first cars
					

Less than a year after construction of the factory started.




					www.theverge.com


----------



## Fazerloz

Robmac said:


> I am starting to think this way too.
> 
> If the Earth is in so much danger because of ICE's why do the governments only pay lip service to preventing the problems.
> 
> If we are in danger of being wiped out as a species (or heading that way), surely manufacturers wouldn't be allowed to make gas guzzling supercars that do 3 times the legal speed limit? And that's only the tip of the iceberg.



As with a lot of things Rob those that shout loudest get believed by many, whether something is true or not. Often truth is the first casualty especially where money and power are concerned.


----------



## Asterix

Fazerloz said:


> Just one factory. Not too shabby for not a car company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla’s Chinese factory just delivered its first cars
> 
> 
> Less than a year after construction of the factory started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theverge.com



Two factories with a third in a year or so,not too shabby for a tech company
Tesla have been estimated to be around 7 years ahead of rival carmakers,nothing to do with the cars themselves,rather the tech that goes into them,automation,batteries,software etc.


----------



## landoboguy

Asterix said:


> For most people a full charge would last a week for commuting, shops,school run etc,it may not make sense if you're a travelling salesman,but I'd think most people would rather have lower fuel and maintenance costs. It can't  be forgotten that battery tech is getting incrementally better all the time,Tesla have once again upped their range,now well in excess of 300 miles on some models.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla Model 3 gets 350 miles in new 'long-range mode' test
> 
> 
> CEO Elon Musk congratulated the Tesla team after the Model 3 got 350 miles of range on a single charge in a new test on range mode. Officially, Tesla Model 3 Long Range had a range of 310 miles on a single charge, but Tesla has found some optimizations in recent months — leading to […]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electrek.co


Yup, and bear in mind plugging in at home will charge to full overnight, plugging in to a supercharger will charge my model s p90d to full in an hour.
A friend of mine is a builder, a block of flats he is working on for Taylor has charge ports being built for each apartment. Since i have owned Tesla I find myself gravitating to places that have chargers, restaurants, shopping, service stations, B&B etc. If you are a business that attracts customers for any length of time, its a wise move to jump on the grant incentives to install a fast (ish) charger.
below shows mine right now at about 4 fifths/sixths. real world with lights heater etc that can come down to 240-250, or if I charge to 300 then 270 ish.
Just like an ICE car, if I rip the arse off it all the time your probably talking 180-200.
The long range version lists 390 miles.


----------



## landoboguy

Asterix said:


> Two factories with a third in a year or so,not too shabby for a tech company
> Tesla have been estimated to be around 7 years ahead of rival carmakers,nothing to do with the cars themselves,rather the tech that goes into them,automation,batteries,software etc.


Tesla Solar panels,  battery and energy captchering technology is going to drive the company as much as vehicle sales, probably more so. And considering they have vans and artics in the pipeline, its going places. You need to look at shares now if you dabble in the markets.
Power walls are going to be next, you can store from solar etc (yes not the best in the uk) and hold it instead of feeding it back in to the grid.


----------



## Tonybvi

landoboguy said:


> Yup, and bear in mind plugging in at home will charge to full overnight, plugging in to a supercharger will charge my model s p90d to full in an hour.
> A friend of mine is a builder, a block of flats he is working on for Taylor has charge ports being built for each apartment. Since i have owned Tesla I find myself gravitating to places that have chargers, restaurants, shopping, service stations, B&B etc. If you are a business that attracts customers for any length of time, its a wise move to jump on the grant incentives to install a fast (ish) charger.
> below shows mine right now at about 4 fifths/sixths. real world with lights heater etc that can come down to 240-250, or if I charge to 300 then 270 ish.
> Just like an ICE car, if I rip the arse off it all the time your probably talking 180-200
> View attachment 76871



Like a lot of people who have had a Tesla for a while I realised that if I switched display to percentage rather than range (miles) any range anxiety I may have had disappeared immediately!  I find battery percentage much more useful rather than the rather misleading range calculation.  I also find the pull up energy graph (app on the large screen display) very useful when ”road tripping”.


----------



## Tonybvi

landoboguy said:


> Tesla Solar panels,  battery and energy captchering technology is going to drive the company as much as vehicle sales, probably more so. And considering they have vans and artics in the pipeline, its going places. You need to look at shares now if you dabble in the markets.
> Power walls are going to be next, you can store from solar etc (yes not the best in the uk) and hold it instead of feeding it back in to the grid.



Pal of mine bought a fair few Tesla shares early this year and sold them all a couple of weeks back.  He ordered himself a top spec a Model 3 with the proceeds!!


----------



## landoboguy

Tonybvi said:


> Pal of mine bought a fair few Tesla shares early this year and sold them all a couple of weeks back.  He ordered himself a top spec a Model 3 with the proceeds!!


Yeah , a guy who works next door to me bought at 10 at 240 in sept 19, they are now 900, I bought at 540 but still have them


----------



## Asterix

landoboguy said:


> Yeah , a guy who works next door to me bought at 10 at 240 in sept 19, they are now 900, I bought at 540 but still have them



The short sellers have certainly had their arses handed to them,but longer term I think The Boring Company is going to be the big bread winner amongst Elons projects.


----------



## Mastodon

I look forward to the ban on everything but EV. I can just imagine all the tower blocks with cables and dodgy extensions hanging out of their windows to charge their cars. 
Not that there will be enough electricity to go round, as wood, coal and gas will be outlawed for heating.
And anyway, to build an EV creates as much co2 as building a 5 series BMW, and driving it 70 000km, not to mention the concrete (between 4% and 8% of the world’s co2 is generated by the manufacture) and copper for the infrastructure and the open cast mines for the lithium. 
Perhaps Germany and Eastern Europe will find something other than Lignite to burn in their power stations to make lovely green electricity too. 
And Australia - if Australia were to be completely banned, the annual reduction in co2 would almost be a whole Chinese day’s worth...

Smugly typed using electricity stored from the sun.
Also available in Cynical.


----------



## Asterix

Mastodon said:


> I look forward to the ban on everything but EV. I can just imagine all the tower blocks with cables and dodgy extensions hanging out of their windows to charge their cars.
> Not that there will be enough electricity to go round, as wood, coal and gas will be outlawed for heating.
> And anyway, to build an EV creates as much co2 as building a 5 series BMW, and driving it 70 000km, not to mention the concrete (between 4% and 8% of the world’s co2 is generated by the manufacture) and copper for the infrastructure and the open cast mines for the lithium.
> Perhaps Germany and Eastern Europe will find something other than Lignite to burn in their power stations to make lovely green electricity too.
> And Australia - if Australia were to be completely banned, the annual reduction in co2 would almost be a whole Chinese day’s worth...
> 
> Smugly typed using electricity stored from the sun.
> Also available in Cynical.



Aus has twenty million people,China over a billion so hardly a surprising comparison,Germany have closed down all coal production in the Ruhr,and has committed to ending production in the East within around 18 years. Richer countries will make the transition quicker but some poor countries are doing their bit as well. Regardless of GW I'd rather see no pollution going into the same environment that we have to live in but it has to start somewhere,as Confucius said " a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step"


----------



## landoboguy

Mastodon said:


> I look forward to the ban on everything but EV. I can just imagine all the tower blocks with cables and dodgy extensions hanging out of their windows to charge their cars.
> Not that there will be enough electricity to go round, as wood, coal and gas will be outlawed for heating.
> And anyway, to build an EV creates as much co2 as building a 5 series BMW, and driving it 70 000km, not to mention the concrete (between 4% and 8% of the world’s co2 is generated by the manufacture) and copper for the infrastructure and the open cast mines for the lithium.
> Perhaps Germany and Eastern Europe will find something other than Lignite to burn in their power stations to make lovely green electricity too.
> And Australia - if Australia were to be completely banned, the annual reduction in co2 would almost be a whole Chinese day’s worth...
> 
> Smugly typed using electricity stored from the sun.
> Also available in Cynical.


So that coal fire of yours in your big old draughty victorian house  will be safe then AS  
You wouldn't happen to be Jacob Reece Mogg by any chance.

Seriously though re the  c02 comment regarding EV cars vs a 5 series, have you seen the new Tesla Factories built as full solar roofs (gigafactories) designed to be fully self powered. They actually have mice running on mice wheels, to power the electric for the vending machines. (ok THAT was a lie) 

Then don't forget the cars don't produce in use it like an ICE does. And also remember the ford etc factories emit more c02 in the production of their cars let alone the running. (This could be argued that they produce more cars granted). Meanwhile the sales of fossil fuel cars continue to fall.

We need balanced views not sweeping statements to base our judgements on, and not dismiss it as dross, without viable alternatives. From what Ive seen , I know Ive taken a positive step to reduce the impact I may have as far is reasonably practical.

If the battery technology continues and motorhomes become viable with Lithium as the fuel source, id jump on it in an instant.


----------



## Fisherman

I am surprised and I have to say disappointed at some of the posts on this thread.
I never realised that so many felt so strongly that global warming is exaggerated.

What surprises me most is this attitude that politicians are somehow behind this, and they will use it to control us and to empty our pockets.
If this was the case then why is Trump pushing forward with his policies and why did he pull out of the Paris accord. The reasons is quite simple the costs and the disruption this will cause to the US economy. Politicians have nothing to do with this, these predictions don’t come from them, they come from scientists and environmentalists who have no real power, it’s politicians who have refused to accept their advice for decades resisting the calls for changes.

The fact is CO2 levels are higher now than in the last 300,000 years, and they continue to rise. The experts (not the politicians) predicted extremities in weather that we are are witnessing. Australia has lost an area the size of Austria to fires, the Caribbean islands are suffering the worse and more storms in history, we are getting used to flooding every winter now affecting more and more areas of our country, including areas that have never flooded in the past two hundred years, which is as far back as records go. One quarter of all species are fighting against extinction, the coral reefs are receding at an alarming rate, the north west passage is becoming navigable. I could go on and on, but for reasons of brevity I wont.

But for all this I am not 100% sure, I just happen to believe that the evidence is overwhelming that we have to change. But others on here seem 100% that what is happening is all part of normality, just a blip in our meteorological history.
They believe that this has all been dreamt up by cunning politicians who want to screw us. I find that astonishing.

None of us will really suffer if you are wrong, but our children and theirs will terribly if you are wrong. What right have we got to risk their future and their wellbeing.


----------



## trevskoda

They had it right first time round,get your orders in now.


----------



## Fisherman

trevskoda said:


> They had it right first time round,get your orders in now.View attachment 76895



Trev I prefer the rear wheel drive version


----------



## davef

Fisherman said:


> I am surprised and I have to say disappointed at some of the posts on this thread.
> I never realised that so many felt so strongly that global warming is exaggerated.
> 
> What surprises me most is this attitude that politicians are somehow behind this, and they will use it to control us and to empty our pockets.
> If this was the case then why is Trump pushing forward with his policies and why did he pull out of the Paris accord. The reasons is quite simple the costs and the disruption this will cause to the US economy. Politicians have nothing to do with this, these predictions don’t come from them, they come from scientists and environmentalists who have no real power, it’s politicians who have refused to accept their advice for decades resisting the calls for changes.
> 
> The fact is CO2 levels are higher now than in the last 300,000 years, and they continue to rise. The experts (not the politicians) predicted extremities in weather that we are are witnessing. Australia has lost an area the size of Austria to fires, the Caribbean islands are suffering the worse and more storms in history, we are getting used to flooding every winter now affecting more and more areas of our country, including areas that have never flooded in the past two hundred years, which is as far back as records go. One quarter of all species are fighting against extinction, the coral reefs are receding at an alarming rate, the north west passage is becoming navigable. I could go on and on, but for reasons of brevity I wont.
> 
> But for all this I am not 100% sure, I just happen to believe that the evidence is overwhelming that we have to change. But others on here seem 100% that what is happening is all part of normality, just a blip in our meteorological history.
> They believe that this has all been dreamt up by cunning politicians who want to screw us. I find that astonishing.
> 
> None of us will really suffer if you are wrong, but our children and theirs will terribly if you are wrong. What right have we got to risk their future and their wellbeing.



The climate hysteria really got going with the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Maurice Strong was one of the leading protagonists and the driving force behind Agenda 21 and also a member of the UN Commission on Global Governance. 
Here is a direct quote by him - "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisation collapses. Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about." And again - " In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that the threat of global warming would fit the bill.......the real enemy then is humanity itself......we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realise World Government. It does not matter if this common enemy is real....or one invented for the purpose."
John Cook who founded "Skeptical Science" came up with the the " 97% of scientists believe in AGW." Researchers found there were 1944 scientific papers on the subject which he had read, only 64 supported his claim. That's 3.2%. As Goebbels said if you repeat a big lie often enough the people will believe it. 
A member of the IPCC has said AGW is not about the environment, it is about re-distributing the worlds wealth.
A 0.8*C rise in the world's temperature since 1880 at the end of the mini ice age is hardly something we should be worried about.

To quote Groucho Marx " Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
Or even more appropriate, H.L.Mencken " the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
EVs allow for far more control of the general population by the government - as does forcing them to heat their homes with electricity which can be remotely switched off with smart meters. The founding fathers realised that all governments are dangerous for the people and wrote the American Constitution to put checks and limits on their power. Our Government has signed up to Agenda 21 and so must be considered to be working against us and to the Globalist agenda. Their motives are not to be trusted.
Modern diesel engines with Adblue and Selective Catalytic Reduction technology reduces nitrous oxides by 80 -95%, and carbonmonoxide and hydrocarbons by 50-90% just emitting harmless nitrogen, steam and beneficial carbon dioxide. Euro 6 engines produce minute amounts of particulates. There is no logical reason for their banning. It is about control and to restrict private car ownership to the rich only.


----------



## Fisherman

[


----------



## Fisherman

davef said:


> The climate hysteria really got going with the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Maurice Strong was one of the leading protagonists and the driving force behind Agenda 21 and also a member of the UN Commission on Global Governance.
> Here is a direct quote by him - "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisation collapses. Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about." And again - " In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that the threat of global warming would fit the bill.......the real enemy then is humanity itself......we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realise World Government. It does not matter if this common enemy is real....or one invented for the purpose."
> John Cook who founded "Skeptical Science" came up with the the " 97% of scientists believe in AGW." Researchers found there were 1944 scientific papers on the subject which he had read, only 64 supported his claim. That's 3.2%. As Goebbels said if you repeat a big lie often enough the people will believe it.
> A member of the IPCC has said AGW is not about the environment, it is about re-distributing the worlds wealth.
> A 0.8*C rise in the world's temperature since 1880 at the end of the mini ice age is hardly something we should be worried about.
> 
> To quote Groucho Marx " Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
> Or even more appropriate, H.L.Mencken " the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
> EVs allow for far more control of the general population by the government - as does forcing them to heat their homes with electricity which can be remotely switched off with smart meters. The founding fathers realised that all governments are dangerous for the people and wrote the American Constitution to put checks and limits on their power. Our Government has signed up to Agenda 21 and so must be considered to be working against us and to the Globalist agenda. Their motives are not to be trusted.
> Modern diesel engines with Adblue and Selective Catalytic Reduction technology reduces nitrous oxides by 80 -95%, and carbonmonoxide and hydrocarbons by 50-90% just emitting harmless nitrogen, steam and beneficial carbon dioxide. Euro 6 engines produce minute amounts of particulates. There is no logical reason for their banning. It is about control and to restrict private car ownership to the rich only.



Excuse me 97% of scientists believe in global warming

*Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.*

taken from









						Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
					

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.




					climate.nasa.gov
				




Note this is from nasa from a country who no longer are signed up to the Paris accord.


----------



## runnach

davef said:


> The climate hysteria really got going with the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Maurice Strong was one of the leading protagonists and the driving force behind Agenda 21 and also a member of the UN Commission on Global Governance.
> Here is a direct quote by him - "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisation collapses. Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about." And again - " In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that the threat of global warming would fit the bill.......the real enemy then is humanity itself......we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realise World Government. It does not matter if this common enemy is real....or one invented for the purpose."
> John Cook who founded "Skeptical Science" came up with the the " 97% of scientists believe in AGW." Researchers found there were 1944 scientific papers on the subject which he had read, only 64 supported his claim. That's 3.2%. As Goebbels said if you repeat a big lie often enough the people will believe it.
> A member of the IPCC has said AGW is not about the environment, it is about re-distributing the worlds wealth.
> A 0.8*C rise in the world's temperature since 1880 at the end of the mini ice age is hardly something we should be worried about.
> 
> To quote Groucho Marx " Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
> Or even more appropriate, H.L.Mencken " the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
> EVs allow for far more control of the general population by the government - as does forcing them to heat their homes with electricity which can be remotely switched off with smart meters. The founding fathers realised that all governments are dangerous for the people and wrote the American Constitution to put checks and limits on their power. Our Government has signed up to Agenda 21 and so must be considered to be working against us and to the Globalist agenda. Their motives are not to be trusted.
> Modern diesel engines with Adblue and Selective Catalytic Reduction technology reduces nitrous oxides by 80 -95%, and carbonmonoxide and hydrocarbons by 50-90% just emitting harmless nitrogen, steam and beneficial carbon dioxide. Euro 6 engines produce minute amounts of particulates. There is no logical reason for their banning. It is about control and to restrict private car ownership to the rich only.


Control divide and conquer, scream loud enough people will believe it seems so true in every aspect of our lives.

The reality very little is reported as it is , invariably an agenda behind it ...anyone remember brexit ? The lies that were told on all sides


----------



## Nabsim

Asterix said:


> Aus has twenty million people,China over a billion so hardly a surprising comparison,Germany have closed down all coal production in the Ruhr,and has committed to ending production in the East within around 18 years. Richer countries will make the transition quicker but some poor countries are doing their bit as well. Regardless of GW I'd rather see no pollution going into the same environment that we have to live in but it has to start somewhere,as Confucius said " a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step"


And you do know that Confucius stole that saying from The Hobbit don’t you?


----------



## Nabsim

trevskoda said:


> They had it right first time round,get your orders in now.View attachment 76895


But mid mounted power plant gives much better weight distribution and handling


----------



## colinm

davef said:


> The climate hysteria really got going with the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Maurice Strong was one of the leading protagonists and the driving force behind Agenda 21 and also a member of the UN Commission on Global Governance.
> Here is a direct quote by him - "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisation collapses. Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about."


ROTFLMHO, that was the plot for a fiction book he wanted to write. 



> And again - " In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that the threat of global warming would fit the bill.......the real enemy then is humanity itself......we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realise World Government. It does not matter if this common enemy is real....or one invented for the purpose."



A heavily edited out of context quote from 'club of rome', not Strong


----------



## Nabsim

I don’t think it matters if you believe in global warming or not. Surely everyone must see the amount of waste and pollution we create with visible things never mind particulates. The U.K. has progressed enough technologically to be classed a disgrace by the way we continue to use non sustainable resource and pollute.

I personally don’t think Most current EV are the better solution, I know I keep harping on about it but hydrogen is surely the mass solution with current technology. Whether that is converting ICE to run on hydrogen or hydrogen powered fuel cells and regenerative technology to power an EV. As a petrolhead I do appreciate the neck braking potential of an electric driveboth setting off and stopping lol


----------



## Fisherman

channa said:


> Control divide and conquer, scream loud enough people will believe it seems so true in every aspect of our lives.
> 
> The reality very little is reported as it is , invariably an agenda behind it ...anyone remember brexit ? The lies that were told on all sides



Sorry Andrew but its scientists that are pushing this agenda not dodgy politicians and their crooked advisers like Johnson and Cummings. Politicians have spent decades resisting their conclusions.
And nobody is screaming.
And  people believe in the *possibility* of global warming, because they have looked carefully at it and have concluded that we cannot sit back and do nothing.


----------



## R0B

Fisherman said:


> Excuse me 97% of scientists believe in global warming
> 
> Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
> taken from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
> 
> 
> Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> climate.nasa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note this is from nasa from a country who no longer are signed up to the Paris accord.



I think that 97% headline figure is a little misleading. I don’t claim to be an expert or a mathematician but this is my take.
The 97% comes from http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 by J. Cook. The salient quote is on page 6:-

*"The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”*

If you stop reading there it all seems cut and dried BUT… if you dig a little deeper you can find how the number was arrived at. The key phrase is ‘among papers expressing a position’.


*‘Following a similar methodology, C13 analysed the abstracts of 11 944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that matched the search terms 'global climate change' or 'global warming' in the ISI Web of Science search engine. Among the 4014 abstracts stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.1% were judged as having implicitly or explicitly endorsed the consensus. In addition, the study authors were invited to rate their own papers, based on the contents of the full paper, not just the abstract. Amongst 1381 papers self-rated by their authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.’*


So the numbers are based on an original 11,944 peer-reviewed abstracts but of that number only 4014 ‘stated a position’ on AGW. Further, when the original authors were asked to rate their own papers only 1381 papers were rated as stating a position, of which 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Working backwards from that we get 1342 papers (97.2% of 1381) endorsed the consensus of AGW.

Which means that of the original 11,944 papers only 1342 endorsed AGW - which is 11.24%. A good bit shy of 97%.

I am definitely not a climate-change denier but it does seem to me that the facts are being presented in such a way as to lead people to a certain conclusion.

I would be very happy if somebody would point out any errors in maths or logic I may have made - I’d hate to be one of the people adding to the mis-information!


----------



## mark61

It’s some scientist, those scientist that get their funding from dodgy politicians who are in turn responding to dodgy lobbyists.

Scientist that don't go along with the agenda get deplatformed, kicked off the BBC (other media too) and have to work hard for a living.


----------



## Fazerloz

Like the world this thread is going round and round and round and actually going nowhere.


----------



## runnach

Fisherman said:


> Sorry Andrew but its scientists that are pushing this agenda not dodgy politicians and their crooked advisers like Johnson and Cummings. Politicians have spent decades resisting their conclusions.
> And nobody is screaming.
> And  people believe in the *possibility* of global warming, because they have looked carefully at it and have concluded that we cannot sit back and do nothing.


 Bill Rob above has given a set of stats in addition to an earlier video clip , that Fazerloz shared that clearly shows the figure are massaged and  the 97 % message is flawed. I also explained how the United States were still looking and investing in reducing gw ,gym modification of animal feed to reduce methane gasses , trump will not simply let an industry out to dry ...

If global warming is as bad as some are suggesting why are they insulting our intelligence with flawed statistics i can only surmise there is an hidden agenda to railroad people into believing half truths .

All this and not withstanding common sense dictates we concentrate on more environmentally friendly solutions for as you say there is a possibility but that’s what it is a possibility there seems little to say cast in stone


----------



## izwozral

Lets get onto something that we can all agree on.








Brexit: Discuss


----------



## mariesnowgoose

Pontificate about 'statistics' 'til you're all blue in the face.

As a seasoned gardener I don't need anyone - scientists, statistics, or otherwise - to tell me what's been going on right outside my door for the last 20 years.

Whether it's 'climate change' or general pollution caused by humans - and no doubt there will be some skewed stats somewhere arguing full pelt that we are all whiter than white and the planet's eco-systems are *NOT* being affected by our activity at all, no siree! - the evidence, as far as I'm concerned, is right there as plain as the noses on your faces.

Ergo: whether it's EV or hydrogen or whatever, it is a GOOD thing that people are at least (and at last!!!) starting to talk and argue about it all with some degree of seriousness, imho.

As you were...


----------



## landoboguy

davef said:


> Modern diesel engines with Adblue and Selective Catalytic Reduction technology reduces nitrous oxides by 80 -95%, and carbonmonoxide and hydrocarbons by 50-90% just emitting harmless nitrogen, steam and beneficial carbon dioxide. Euro 6 engines produce minute amounts of particulates. There is no logical reason for their banning. It is about control and to restrict private car ownership to the rich only.


Dave, that doesnt change the fact that diesel/petrol emissions are a class 1 carcinogen, let alone the soot and minute particles that clog the lung areola
when it comes to combusted fuels there is not a filter around that can make it harmless and keep performance, simple.
I can list you 10-20 of the components remaining in diesel after filtering  that are all listed as carcinogenic, some highly and some not so.

I suppose by your rational, the government were hasty in shutting down the asbestos industry.
or another analogy "my gran smoked 40 fags a a day and lived to be 100" oh yeah but every fag the gran smoked increased her chances of death, which is just like saying lets cross the road blindfold 40 times a day and see if we get lucky. *ONLY THIS morning* a report found extremely high levels of emissions damaging to health of "drive through" workers with all the vehicles stood belching out soot.

Give our children the best chance, i dont see what the problem is myself.


----------



## izwozral

mariesnowgoose said:


> Pontificate about 'statistics' 'til you're all blue in the face.
> 
> As a seasoned gardener I don't need anyone - scientists, statistics, or otherwise - to tell me what's been going on right outside my door for the last 20 years.
> 
> Whether it's 'climate change' or general pollution caused by humans - and no doubt there will be some skewed stats somewhere arguing full pelt that we are all whiter than white and the planet's eco-systems are *NOT* being affected by our activity at all, no siree! - the evidence, as far as I'm concerned, is right there as plain as the noses on your faces.
> 
> Ergo: whether it's EV or hydrogen or whatever, it is a GOOD thing that people are at least (and at last!!!) starting to talk and argue about it all with some degree of seriousness, imho.
> 
> As you were...




Wild garlic growing at the end of January is a plus, I just wouldn't stand too close to me if you want to discuss it - unless you wish to partake too.


----------



## Eriba

My view is that electric vehicles are not wholly the answer, however Hydrogen pumps are beginning to appear and Gas Networks are looking at Hydrogen boilers as are gas boiler makers.
Quite interesting challenges as Hydrogen burns with an invisible flame, however its highly possible to achieve an alternative interlock system.
Cars are likely to follow suit, major Super markets are using Hydrogen propulsion.
Remember Betamax was going to be the answer, shadows on the wall!!


----------



## Fisherman

izwozral said:


> Lets get onto something that we can all agree on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit: Discuss



Sadist


----------



## Nabsim

Will obviously see where we are up to by then and if I am still here but my next car in around 30 months will be hydrogen if they are more widespread and can get fuelled locally. Failing that probably hybrid of some sort, I was very tempted with a Hyundai hybrid this time but when we went to have a look it was very nice but neither of us felt we wanted it


----------



## Asterix

Nabsim said:


> Will obviously see where we are up to by then and if I am still here but my next car in around 30 months will be hydrogen if they are more widespread and can get fuelled locally. Failing that probably hybrid of some sort, I was very tempted with a Hyundai hybrid this time but when we went to have a look it was very nice but neither of us felt we wanted it



If you go hybrid be sure to research insurance first, catalytic converter thefts have massively upped premiums on hybrids,and there are cases of insurers refusing to insure at all because of repeated thefts from the same vehicle.


----------



## Nabsim

Asterix said:


> If you go hybrid be sure to research insurance first, catalytic converter thefts have massively upped premiums on hybrids,and there are cases of insurers refusing to insure at all because of repeated thefts from the same vehicle.


I have a mobility car Asterix and insurance and servicing is included in the 3 year lease. All I have to do is put fuel in it. All that said if we have moved somewhere with offroad parking then it would be possible to have an EV also


----------



## runnach

In London there are the electric bikes,sometimes not practical if out as a family or needing to carry goods,but what about electric tuck tuks could be rented adhoc and at quiet times charged and valeted ,,,,Sri Lanka is well down the road of making the tuk tuks practical


----------



## Nabsim

channa said:


> In London there are the electric bikes,sometimes not practical if out as a family or needing to carry goods,but what about electric tuck tuks could be rented adhoc and at quiet times charged and valeted ,,,,Sri Lanka is well down the road of making the tuk tuks practical


They just need to ban all vehicles from city centres Andrew, solutions would spring up overnight, See how many rickshaws pop up


----------



## Jayg

I find with all the arguments about GW on this platform along with Britexit, is that you will all be long dead before we feel the full effects.
So you can all argue all you want.
But what would tell you great grand children if you were alive?
In my humble opinion, it’s a win win situation.
We stop polluting our plant, invest in clean energy, what do we loose?


----------



## trevskoda

Nabsim said:


> I have a mobility car Asterix and insurance and servicing is included in the 3 year lease. All I have to do is put fuel in it. All that said if we have moved somewhere with offroad parking then it would be possible to have an EV also


The fuel is free with electric. Free car free fuel cannot beat that.


----------



## mark61

Jayg said:


> I find with all the arguments about GW on this platform along with Britexit, is that you will all be long dead before we feel the full effects.
> So you can all argue all you want.
> But what would tell you great grand children if you were alive?
> In my humble opinion, it’s a win win situation.
> We stop polluting our plant, invest in clean energy, what do we loose?



I’d tell them about the funny old days where far too many people fell for a climate catastrophe hoax. Sorted.


----------



## davef

It is easy to think that whats the harm in taking all these measures if there is a chance it will make the world a bit cleaner. But there is a cost. Teresa May's evil parting gift to the nation passed unthinkingly by parliament of " Net Zero" by 2050 and being accelerated by Boris as per the diesel and petrol ban, has been costed by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Foundation. The cost to the nation, us, £3 trillion - that's £100,000 for every household. That will certainly mess up our grand and great grand children's lives.... and will presumably mean no use of cars, planes, ships, trains, motor bikes, motor homes ...... except for work. 
I do think we have the responsibility to protect the environment and there are many things to worry about, like plastic pollution that seems to have got everywhere, and that grain growing land is rapidly loosing its nutrients and may soon be infertile, and all the various additives going into our food and out into the eco-system. What is not a problem is CO2, and it is utterly immoral for governments to make out it is in order to further their agendas.


----------



## Asterix

davef said:


> It is easy to think that whats the harm in taking all these measures if there is a chance it will make the world a bit cleaner. But there is a cost. Teresa May's evil parting gift to the nation passed unthinkingly by parliament of " Net Zero" by 2050 and being accelerated by Boris as per the diesel and petrol ban, has been costed by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Foundation. The cost to the nation, us, £3 trillion - that's £100,000 for every household. That will certainly mess up our grand and great grand children's lives.... and will presumably mean no use of cars, planes, ships, trains, motor bikes, motor homes ...... except for work.
> I do think we have the responsibility to protect the environment and there are many things to worry about, like plastic pollution that seems to have got everywhere, and that grain growing land is rapidly loosing its nutrients and may soon be infertile, and all the various additives going into our food and out into the eco-system. What is not a problem is CO2, and it is utterly immoral for governments to make out it is in order to further their agendas.



The trouble with these sort of cost measurements is that they just pull the figures out their arses,what you've failed to mention is the cost of doing nothing,that has the potential to massively exceeed three trillion,there's also no mention of the costs that will be offset with new industries starting up. To my mind no one can truly come up with figures for any of these things,too many variables,too many unknowns and new research and development leading to new innovations in energy,recycling,transport constantly being added to the mix.
Ultimately the best solution is really having a couple of billion people drop dead, I had high hopes for coronavirus but unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's up to the job.


----------



## davef

Those at the very top promoting the alarmist warming scam openly admit it is a scam.
 This is Ottmar Edenhoffer who is the Co-Chair of the International Panel on Climate Change - the UN's IPCC - in an interview with German NZZ Online - " One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy......  One must say clearly that we distribute the world's wealth by climate policy."
There it is in black and white from the very top of the scam.
AGW is a new age religion for those who have lost any true religious belief system. Trying to argue with such a believer with facts and evidence and logic is like trying to sensibly argue with any fanatical religious believer whether they are a born again Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim. It is a new belief system you are undermining which they are clinging on to - and some will fight to the death for - as we keep seeing.
" It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled" Mark Twain.
The cost of doing nothing - is like the cost of doing nothing about the Millennium Bug, which was going to cause planes to fall out of the sky, computers and civilisation  to crash - nothing. Some countries wasted billions on a non-problem, some spent nothing. The result was the same. The same will happen with AGW. We should not be the idiot country bankrupting ourselves and our future for an illusion, a non-problem. Our grandchildren will certainly not thank us for that.


----------



## Fisherman

davef said:


> Those at the very top promoting the alarmist warming scam openly admit it is a scam.
> This is Ottmar Edenhoffer who is the Co-Chair of the International Panel on Climate Change - the UN's IPCC - in an interview with German NZZ Online - " One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy......  One must say clearly that we distribute the world's wealth by climate policy."
> There it is in black and white from the very top of the scam.
> AGW is a new age religion for those who have lost any true religious belief system. Trying to argue with such a believer with facts and evidence and logic is like trying to sensibly argue with any fanatical religious believer whether they are a born again Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim. It is a new belief system you are undermining which they are clinging on to - and some will fight to the death for - as we keep seeing.
> " It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled" Mark Twain.
> The cost of doing nothing - is like the cost of doing nothing about the Millennium Bug, which was going to cause planes to fall out of the sky, computers and civilisation  to crash - nothing. Some countries wasted billions on a non-problem, some spent nothing. The result was the same. The same will happen with AGW. We should not be the idiot country bankrupting ourselves and our future for an illusion, a non-problem. Our grandchildren will certainly not thank us for that.


----------



## Fazerloz

Asterix said:


> The trouble with these sort of cost measurements is that they just pull the figures out their arses,what you've failed to mention is the cost of doing nothing,that has the potential to massively exceeed three trillion,there's also no mention of the costs that will be offset with new industries starting up. To my mind no one can truly come up with figures for any of these things,too many variables,too many unknowns and new research and development leading to new innovations in energy,recycling,transport constantly being added to the mix.
> Ultimately the best solution is really having a couple of billion people drop dead, I had high hopes for coronavirus but unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's up to the job.



Just like GW computer modeling pulls figures out of its arse.


----------



## Asterix

Fazerloz said:


> Just like GW computer modeling pulls figures out of its arse.



You may be right,or not...we can debate till we're blue in the face,the fact is I'd rather have a greener future for the planet,fossil fuels have brought us an amazing standard of living along with a massive health and environmental cost. Now we have the opportunity to have an even better standard of living for our society in the future.


----------



## Martin P

davef said:


> Those at the very top promoting the alarmist warming scam openly admit it is a scam.
> This is Ottmar Edenhoffer who is the Co-Chair of the International Panel on Climate Change - the UN's IPCC - in an interview with German NZZ Online - " One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy......  One must say clearly that we distribute the world's wealth by climate policy."
> There it is in black and white from the very top of the scam.
> AGW is a new age religion for those who have lost any true religious belief system. Trying to argue with such a believer with facts and evidence and logic is like trying to sensibly argue with any fanatical religious believer whether they are a born again Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim. It is a new belief system you are undermining which they are clinging on to - and some will fight to the death for - as we keep seeing.
> " It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled" Mark Twain.
> The cost of doing nothing - is like the cost of doing nothing about the Millennium Bug, which was going to cause planes to fall out of the sky, computers and civilisation  to crash - nothing. Some countries wasted billions on a non-problem, some spent nothing. The result was the same. The same will happen with AGW. We should not be the idiot country bankrupting ourselves and our future for an illusion, a non-problem. Our grandchildren will certainly not thank us for that.


Could not agree more.
Just reminds me of the nutters I used to see as a kid standing on street corners shouting out we are all doomed.
Two things the British love 
Saying we are all going to die and talking about the weather
Now the loonies say we are all going to die because of the weather they are all on a roll


----------



## GreggBear

Asterix said:


> You may be right,or not...we can debate till we're blue in the face,the fact is I'd rather have a greener future for the planet,fossil fuels have brought us an amazing standard of living along with a massive health and environmental cost. Now we have the opportunity to have an even better standard of living for our society in the future.


If you want a greener future, maybe instead of depriving your fellow countrymen of reasonably priced fuel/transport etc you should be campaigning to get USA/ China etc to make even a slight change to their "planet killing" ways! Even a slight change by either of the top polluters would by far eclipse anything we could ever achieve. Don't think it's fair to expect us to  give up everything while China are still building coal fired power stations & America are still running 7litre plus petrol vehicles that return double figure mpg figures. India are supposedly one of the fastest growing economies in the world just now, what is their stance on Greek issues? Why are these countries not being pressured instead of us caving in again as usual?


----------



## Fisherman

Asterix said:


> You may be right,or not...we can debate till we're blue in the face,the fact is I'd rather have a greener future for the planet,fossil fuels have brought us an amazing standard of living along with a massive health and environmental cost. Now we have the opportunity to have an even better standard of living for our society in the future.



Debate Asterix, no chance.
You are a loonie, an alarmist, naive, gullible, a nutter, someone who used to stand at a street corner telling us we are all doomed, and apparently you love to talk about the weather. How can you debate with comments like that flying about.
Trying to put forward a reasoned reasonable debate on here is a complete waste of time.

So let’s try adding a bit of humour to the (debate)

*Apparently some think I was having a go at asterix with this post.
I was not doing so. I was referring to how those who think that global warming is a possibility have been described on here. If you care to look you will note that asterix liked the post. But I apologise if anyone misunderstood my intentions. *


----------



## Asterix

GreggBear said:


> If you want a greener future, maybe instead of depriving your fellow countrymen of reasonably priced fuel/transport etc you should be campaigning to get USA/ China etc to make even a slight change to their "planet killing" ways! Even a slight change by either of the top polluters would by far eclipse anything we could ever achieve. Don't think it's fair to expect us to  give up everything while China are still building coal fired power stations & America are still running 7litre plus petrol vehicles that return double figure mpg figures. India are supposedly one of the fastest growing economies in the world just now, what is their stance on Greek issues? Why are these countries not being pressured instead of us caving in again as usual?



With a little help from Google,you'll see that China and India are spending huge amounts on going green,what the UK spends in comparison is a pittance. America too is surging ahead with green initiatives with little to no support from Central government,because it's what the people want,it would certainly be better with gov. support but whether you and others like it or not,it's the people that are pushing it forward. If you look at underdeveloped countries you will also see that many of them are leapfrogging over the outdated tech we've been depending on for the last hundred odd years,and going straight to green for new energy initiatives.
It is disingenuous to suggest others aren't pulling their weight when their efforts often exceed our own,or singling out China as the biggest polluter,of course they are with a pop. in excess of a billion.


----------



## mark61

Fisherman said:


> Debate Asterix, no chance.
> You are a loonie, an alarmist, naive, gullible, a nutter, someone who used to stand at a street corner telling us we are all doomed, and apparently you love to talk about the weather. How can you debate with comments like that flying about.
> Trying to put forward a reasoned reasonable debate on here is a complete waste of time.
> 
> So let’s try adding a bit of humour to the (debate)





Oh stop it, you've used climate denier, luddite etc throughout the whole post. No one has mentioned it.  One post with a derogatory term the other way and there's no chance of a debate.


----------



## Fisherman

Asterix said:


> With a little help from Google,you'll see that China and India are spending huge amounts on going green,what the UK spends in comparison is a pittance. America too is surging ahead with green initiatives with little to no support from Central government,because it's what the people want,it would certainly be better with gov. support but whether you and others like it or not,it's the people that are pushing it forward. If you look at underdeveloped countries you will also see that many of them are leapfrogging over the outdated tech we've been depending on for the last hundred odd years,and going straight to green for new energy initiatives.
> It is disingenuous to suggest others aren't pulling their weight when their efforts often exceed our own,or singling out China as the biggest polluter,of course they are with a pop. in excess of a billion.



California and other states have adopted many green policies.
As for the Americans all driving about in gas guzzlers, simply not true.
Many now drive mid range astra type cars, and you see loads of minis on their roads now. I have even seen smart cars. 40 years ago when petrol was 30 cents a gallon times were different.


----------



## Fisherman

mark61 said:


> Oh stop it, you've used climate denier, luddite etc throughout the whole post. No one has mentioned it.  One post with a derogatory term the other way and there's no chance of a debate.



Mark I have just read through all of my posts and I cannot see where I called you a denier or a Luddite. I did refer to those who thought that the car would never replace horses as Luddites. I have tried being serious, funny, considerate, and detailed. I quoted Wiki on here something we all use, only to be told basically it’s a load of balls, and you can’t rely on what’s on it.

Also Mark if I did state you are a denier so what. By definition you are a denier, doubter, or whatever word you chose to use. But I am not gullible, stupid, easily led, a loonie, an alarmist, a nutter, or a doom munger.
I am simply someone who is not prepared to gamble with my kids and their kids future. I am not 100% behind what is going on, or human induced global warming. But neither am I so sure that this is all some cunning plan to get us all of the roads either,  by the powers that be.


----------



## GreggBear

Asterix said:


> With a little help from Google,you'll see that China and India are spending huge amounts on going green,what the UK spends in comparison is a pittance. America too is surging ahead with green initiatives with little to no support from Central government,because it's what the people want,it would certainly be better with gov. support but whether you and others like it or not,it's the people that are pushing it forward. If you look at underdeveloped countries you will also see that many of them are leapfrogging over the outdated tech we've been depending on for the last hundred odd years,and going straight to green for new energy initiatives.
> It is disingenuous to suggest others aren't pulling their weight when their efforts often exceed our own,or singling out China as the biggest polluter,of course they are with a pop. in excess of a billion.


Yes they're doing something but nowhere near as much as everyone else pro rata. They are still major polluters & what they are doing is not anywhere near enough. We are such a small fish in a big sea yet we are being asked(told) to give up so much to "save the planet" When are the big players going to be made to stop growing their newfound economic wealth, or give up their co2 rich lifestyles?


----------



## Asterix

GreggBear said:


> Yes they're doing something but nowhere near as much as everyone else pro rata. They are still major polluters & what they are doing is not anywhere near enough. We are such a small fish in a big sea yet we are being asked(told) to give up so much to "save the planet" When are the big players going to be made to stop growing their newfound economic wealth, or give up their co2 rich lifestyles?



You must realise there's still large populations in both India and China that are striving to reach our standard of living,fossil fuels will play a big part in that for the foreseeable future,or would you prefer they maintain their peasant status? We (developed nation's) should be leading the way and striving to reach 0 emissions asap,so the technology and know how can be passed on to those in less fortunate positions.
It's not good enough to do nothing and argue that others aren't doing their bit when they're economically light years behind us,if we set the example for others to follow....they will follow.


----------



## mark61

I never said you called me denier. I said you have used the term. The term is taken from the term "Holocaust denial" and has been appropriated by climate activist since the around the late 80's early 90's with the sole purpose of causing offence. Another thing they got wrong. 
There is virtually no-one who is a climate denier or a climate change denier, what is denied is the cherry picked stats, the false 97% etc,  so if you insist on using the word denier, than fake news deniers would be the correct one   I thought you had researched this to the nth degree.


----------



## Fisherman

mark61 said:


> I never said you called me denier. I said you have used the term. The term is taken from the term "Holocaust denial" and has been appropriated by climate activist since the around the late 80's early 90's with the sole purpose of causing offence. Another thing they got wrong.
> There is virtually no-one who is a climate denier or a climate change denier, what is denied is the cherry picked stats, the false 97% etc,  so if you insist on using the word denier, than fake news deniers would be the correct one   I thought you had researched this to the nth degree.



Can you show me the post where I used the term denier, prior to my previous post.
post number please. I cannot find it.
Also show me where I stated I had researched to the nth degree.
post number please. I cannot find it.

As for posting cherry picked stats, pot and kettle come readily to mind.
This thread is full of them.
I posted that as a reply to someone who stated that only 3.2 % of scientists support global warming theories. Funny how you never latched on to that one Mark.

*John Cook who founded "Skeptical Science" came up with the the " 97% of scientists believe in AGW." Researchers found there were 1944 scientific papers on the subject which he had read, only 64 supported his claim. That's 3.2%.*


----------



## Fisherman

[


----------



## Fisherman

Asterix said:


> You must realise there's still large populations in both India and China that are striving to reach our standard of living,fossil fuels will play a big part in that for the foreseeable future,or would you prefer they maintain their peasant status? We (developed nation's) should be leading the way and striving to reach 0 emissions asap,so the technology and know how can be passed on to those in less fortunate positions.
> It's not good enough to do nothing and argue that others aren't doing their bit when they're economically light years behind us,if we set the example for others to follow....they will follow.



Checked the figures for per capita CO2 emissions.
But as I got them from wiki, they are a load of balls according to some on here.

But anyway India 1.6 ton. China 8 tons uk 6 tons, and the elephant in the room the good old USA 16 tons.


----------



## colinm

Fisherman said:


> Checked the figures for per capita CO2 emissions.
> But as I got them from wiki, they are a load of balls according to some on here.
> 
> But anyway India 1.6 ton. China 6 tons uk 8 tons, and the elephant in the room the good old USA 16 tons.


I think you have UK and China mixed up.


----------



## Fisherman

colinmd said:


> I think you have UK and China mixed up.



Correct I did .


----------



## Fisherman

I cannot resist some cherry picking, but 85% of us in the uk reckon we have a problem. No doubt this will be put to the test. Oh and it did not come from wiki.  









						Concern about climate change reaches record levels with half now 'very concerned'
					

New polling shows 85% of Britons are now concerned about climate change, with the majority (52%) very concerned.




					www.ipsos.com


----------



## GreggBear

Asterix said:


> You must realise there's still large populations in both India and China that are striving to reach our standard of living,fossil fuels will play a big part in that for the foreseeable future,or would you prefer they maintain their peasant status? We (developed nation's) should be leading the way and striving to reach 0 emissions asap,so the technology and know how can be passed on to those in less fortunate positions.
> It's not good enough to do nothing and argue that others aren't doing their bit when they're economically light years behind us,if we set the example for others to follow....they will follow.


Is this the same third world nation that has its own space programme, or the one that is currently building nuclear power stations?
If people in these countries are still " peasants" it's the fault of their govt not because of us. In reality I think the world would be a much better place if the entire human race still lived as "peasants" Global warming is made much worse by us evolving into what we are. Can't have one without the other I reckon....


----------



## mark61

Fisherman said:


> Can you show me the post where I used the term denier, prior to my previous post.
> post number please. I cannot find it.
> Also show me where I stated I had researched to the nth degree.
> post number please. I cannot find it.
> 
> As for posting cherry picked stats, pot and kettle come readily to mind.
> This thread is full of them.
> I posted that as a reply to someone who stated that only 3.2 % of scientists support global warming theories. Funny how you never latched on to that one Mark.
> 
> *John Cook who founded "Skeptical Science" came up with the the " 97% of scientists believe in AGW." Researchers found there were 1944 scientific papers on the subject which he had read, only 64 supported his claim. That's 3.2%.*




No chance, I'm not going through 28 pages of posts. Perhaps you can look again, just to be sure?


----------



## Fisherman

mark61 said:


> No chance, I'm not going through 28 pages of posts. Perhaps you can look again, just to be sure?



Of perhaps you should check your facts before dishing out accusations Mark.
I did your work for you earlier.


----------



## Fazerloz

runnach said:


> At least our MP's are looking to make the moral move. Not a bad pension pot for a bunch of non-producers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midlothian MP joins campaign to remove pension fund’s fossil fuel investment
> 
> 
> Midlothian MP Owen Thompson has become the latest Scottish MP adding their support for fossil fuel divestment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.midlothianadvertiser.co.uk



Nice moral stance. Just to open up another can of worms. Should Scotland ever get another referendum and vote for independence and get control of the oil fields would they close the oil fields and lose all revenue from them and supporting industries or be a bunch of hypocrites and say they need the money, if immediate action is required on GW. After all immediate action is immediate action not something to do just when its convenient. Some alarmists say we only have 12 years to sort all this out. Depending who or what you believe that is.


----------



## Asterix

GreggBear said:


> Is this the same third world nation that has its own space programme, or the one that is currently building nuclear power stations?
> If people in these countries are still " peasants" it's the fault of their govt not because of us. In reality I think the world would be a much better place if the entire human race still lived as "peasants" Global warming is made much worse by us evolving into what we are. Can't have one without the other I reckon....



China has pulled more people out of poverty than any other nation on the planet...ever. Are you trying to say they aren't entitled to keep up with the rest of the world in certain areas? Look at the money they've spent in other countries with their Belt and Road Initiatives,admittedly much of it for political purposes but the effect has been to pull other nations out of poverty and provide them with infrastructure for the future,rail links,dams,roads etc 
Should the UK stop military spending or space research to benefit the new poverty class that's been created in our cities?


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> California and other states have adopted many green policies.
> As for the Americans all driving about in gas guzzlers, simply not true.
> Many now drive mid range astra type cars, and you see loads of minis on their roads now. I have even seen smart cars. 40 years ago when petrol was 30 cents a gallon times were different.


Look at the units sold.
It could be a while before they give up their trucks. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g27041933/best-selling-cars-2019/?slide=1


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> Look at the units sold.
> It could be a while before they give up their trucks. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g27041933/best-selling-cars-2019/?slide=1



Faze there are some around yes.
All I stated was 40 years ago you would never have seen minis and smart cars in the US. Mid range cars are now the most popular. But this has nothing to do with their concerns for the planet. It’s their pockets at $2.60 a gallon they reckon that’s expensive. I told a Floridian that we pay about $10 a gallon here, he was shocked and said

”how do you live man, how do you live”


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> California and other states have adopted many green policies.
> As for the Americans all driving about in gas guzzlers, simply not true.
> Many now drive mid range astra type cars, and you see loads of minis on their roads now. I have even seen smart cars. 40 years ago when petrol was 30 cents a gallon times were different.



I like cherry picking too . it seems to be the way to go. you can't have seen many Smart cars as Mercedes don't sell them in the USA any more as sales were that abysmal.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> I like cherry picking too . it seems to be the way to go. you can't have seen many Smart cars as Mercedes don't sell them in the USA any more as sales were that abysmal.



I only saw a handful in Naples Florida faze.
They looked silly on their roads.
we visited a campsite in a county park just to look at the RVs.
We were invited into one for a look, and the guy told me he gets 4mpg.
He paid $235,000 for it after retiring from the fire service.
Him and his wife had came down from New York and they were spending 
two years touring.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Faze there are some around yes.
> All I stated was 40 years ago you would never have seen minis and smart cars in the US. Mid range cars are now the most popular. But this has nothing to do with their concerns for the planet. It’s their pockets at $2.60 a gallon they reckon that’s expensive. I told a Floridian that we pay about $10 a gallon here, he was shocked and said
> 
> ”how do you live man, how do you live”



Mid range cars are not the most popular by a long shot. 
In 2019, some 4.7 million automobiles, about 12.2 million light trucks, and some 529,500 heavy duty trucks were sold to customers in the USA. Overall, the USA*.* auto industry sold about 17 million motor vehicles in 2019.14 Jan 2020


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> Mid range cars are not the most popular by a long shot.
> In 2019, some 4.7 million automobiles, about 12.2 million light trucks, and some 529,500 heavy duty trucks were sold to customers in the USA. Overall, the USA*.* auto industry sold about 17 million motor vehicles in 2019.14 Jan 2020



Faze I am merely giving you an observation of what I saw in Florida.
I did not carry out a survey, or check out google.
My original post stands, Americans drive smaller cars than they did 40 years ago when petrol was 30C a gallon.
Clearly at 16 tons per capita against our 6 tons, Americans are still much heavier fossil fuel users than anyone else on the planet.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> Faze I am merely giving you an observation of what I saw in Florida.
> I did not carry out a survey, or check out google.
> My original post stands, Americans drive smaller cars than they did 40 years ago when petrol was 30C a gallon.
> Clearly at 16 tons per capita against our 6 tons, Americans are much heavier fossil fuel users than anyone else on the planet.



$1.19 US gallon,  In 1980. not 30c .    Mid range cars are now the most popular. Is a statement of fact not a observation.


----------



## Fisherman

OK I was there in 1973 47 years ago go do your figures for 1973.

I know for a fact they were under 50c, I thought about 30c

My comments relate to Florida, were many cars are hired by tourists from within and outside the US.


----------



## runnach

The us market and uk markets are totally different in how they operate it is difficult to compare apples with apples,what is more interesting is the methodology of how the cars are retailed. The obvious example is jeep the grand Cherokee alone sells 247000 units the total sales in the uk which I suspect includes the Chrysler and dodge brand amounts to 6150 units and don’t forget perhaps 10% are dealer self registrations as demonstrators 

The qualification process in the states is totally different credit ratings determining finance rates tailored to each indidual, and personal contract purchases are big business in the us and where it originated.from experience the may have mid sized cars in the Us , but he Chrysler neon,Sebring,pt cruiser are all awful on fuel economy something the Americans seem to care little about considering amongst the big sellers the thirsty models still make up a chunk ....

California was one of the first states to introduce cat converters the benefit they had and is common practice the non cat models palmed off to other states


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> OK I was there in 1973 47 years ago go do your figures for 1973.
> 
> I know for a fact they were under 50c, I thought about 30c
> 
> My comments relate to Florida, were many cars are hired by tourists from within and outside the US.



You are pretty much bob on with that.   1973   $0.39


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> You are pretty much bob on with that.   1973   $0.39



Right Faze it’s google time.

Did some reading and up till 2008 small cars were becoming more popular in the states. But from then onwards they have started buying larger SUV types again.
Most Floridians tend to drive white cars to try and deflect the heat, and convertibles are popular. Possibly Florida is not a fair reflection of what’s going on throughout the states, I don’t know.


----------



## Minisorella

I'd go along with your point about smaller cars in America Fisherman. I lived in Maryland, close to DC, for 3 years back in the 80s when my husband's job saw him posted out there. Both fuel and cars were really cheap at that time and we bought 2 cars there... one fairly ordinary but considered 'compact' 2ltr saloon car, brand new for my husband's commute and an old Chevvy Caprice Classic stationwagon for me to ferry the kids and friends around and for longer road trips as a family.  The Caprice was a 5.7ltr 8-cylinder engine with three rows of seats and the suspension of a comfy sofa! It was huge and very green (as in colour!), so was christened Godzilla! During the 3 years we lived there, most of the families in our fairly representative, middle class-ish, residential neighbourhood had a similar setup to us with a huge family vehicle and a smaller commute one. Imports were obviously around but the vast majority of the cars on the road seemed to be US brands and you rarely saw a car as small as, say, a Golf.  During many subsequent visits back to my old neighbourhood I've seen things change a lot. Fuel costs have rocketed, although we'd obviously still love their prices! Most of my friends now drive mid-size European or Japanese cars and there are lots of 4x4s and crossovers... but you rarely see any big old gas-guzzlers like Godzilla any more.  God I loved that old car!


----------



## Fazerloz

runnach said:


> Some info here for anyone interested in eCar.
> 
> 
> 
> http://mail.regit.cars/public/read_message.jsp;jsessionid=0;apw68?sigreq=-1789638740
> 
> 
> 
> Link above issue, try this one https://www.regit.cars/car-news/drivers-flock-to-electric-cars-in-2020-2021_72700
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explaining Electric Cars - Should I Buy an EV and Will It Save Me Money?
> 
> 
> Electric cars do make sense - here's all you need to know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.regit.cars




It goes through loads of facts and figures and never answers the final question. Will it save me money. ?
The final paragraph copied below,  just leaves the answer hanging................I dont know about anyone else but this reads to me like . No not yet, but we don't actually say it.......

However, all this needs to be balanced by the higher purchase costs. Electric cars are still more expensive than an equivalent petrol or diesel model, although the gap is closing, and depreciation tends to be higher as buyers are concerned by batteries that may have degraded. This means that monthly payments also tend to be higher on PCP deals, although leasing deals are very competitive as the cars will reach the end of their term well before any battery issues rear their heads.

It’s also worth noting that while taxation for both private and company car drivers is low now, it might not remain that way in the long term.


----------



## Fisherman

Minisorella said:


> I'd go along with your point about smaller cars in America Fisherman. I lived in Maryland, close to DC, for 3 years back in the 80s when my husband's job saw him posted out there. Both fuel and cars were really cheap at that time and we bought 2 cars there... one fairly ordinary but considered 'compact' 2ltr saloon car, brand new for my husband's commute and an old Chevvy Caprice Classic stationwagon for me to ferry the kids and friends around and for longer road trips as a family.  The Caprice was a 5.7ltr 8-cylinder engine with three rows of seats and the suspension of a comfy sofa! It was huge and very green (as in colour!), so was christened Godzilla! During the 3 years we lived there, most of the families in our fairly representative, middle class-ish, residential neighbourhood had a similar setup to us with a huge family vehicle and a smaller commute one. Imports were obviously around but the vast majority of the cars on the road seemed to be US brands and you rarely saw a car as small as, say, a Golf.  During many subsequent visits back to my old neighbourhood I've seen things change a lot. Fuel costs have rocketed, although we'd obviously still love their prices! Most of my friends now drive mid-size European or Japanese cars and there are lots of 4x4s and crossovers... but you rarely see any big old gas-guzzlers like Godzilla any more.  God I loved that old car!



Yes Japanese cars are very popular in the states.
Must have been great living in DC.
We spent a week there and never got everything done.
I suppose that’s an excuse to go back.
The museums were fantastic and free (my favourite word being a scot  )
Apart from the national geographic which was amazing.
We had booked a tour of the Whitehouse but they cancelled it the day before


----------



## Fazerloz

Minisorella said:


> I'd go along with your point about smaller cars in America Fisherman. I lived in Maryland, close to DC, for 3 years back in the 80s when my husband's job saw him posted out there. Both fuel and cars were really cheap at that time and we bought 2 cars there... one fairly ordinary but considered 'compact' 2ltr saloon car, brand new for my husband's commute and an old Chevvy Caprice Classic stationwagon for me to ferry the kids and friends around and for longer road trips as a family.  The Caprice was a 5.7ltr 8-cylinder engine with three rows of seats and the suspension of a comfy sofa! It was huge and very green (as in colour!), so was christened Godzilla! During the 3 years we lived there, most of the families in our fairly representative, middle class-ish, residential neighbourhood had a similar setup to us with a huge family vehicle and a smaller commute one. Imports were obviously around but the vast majority of the cars on the road seemed to be US brands and you rarely saw a car as small as, say, a Golf.  During many subsequent visits back to my old neighbourhood I've seen things change a lot. Fuel costs have rocketed, although we'd obviously still love their prices! Most of my friends now drive mid-size European or Japanese cars and there are lots of 4x4s and crossovers... but you rarely see any big old gas-guzzlers like Godzilla any more.  God I loved that old car!



Just like you rarely see 40 odd year old cars on the road over here, but it doesn't alter the fact more full size pickups are sold annually in the states than cars.


----------



## Minisorella

Fisherman said:


> Yes Japanese cars are very popular in the states.
> Must have been great living in DC.
> We spent a week there and never got everything done.
> I suppose that’s an excuse to go back.
> The museums were fantastic and free (my favourite word being a scot  )
> Apart from the national geographic which was amazing.
> We had booked a tour of the Whitehouse but they cancelled it the day before


We had 3 wonderful years in the US... loved every single moment. To be honest, I was reluctant to go - listened to too much of the anti- sort of hype beforehand! Once we were there, living in a normal family neighbourhood with the kids at school and all of us making friends, we all totally fell in love with the place and all the neighbourly, hospitable and supportive people we met. DC is still my favourite city in the world and I never tire of all the amazing things centred around the Mall - the many Smithsonian museums, the Capitol, all the stunning monuments and a walk around the tidal basin, which, in the Spring with all the hundreds of cherry trees in full bloom and forming overhead arches, has to be the prettiest place to walk that I've ever seen. We were lucky and did the White House tour, plus we were guests in the grounds when Maggie met Ronald... a dubious honour that horrified my Labour councillor sister but my late husband worked at the Embassy, so we got the odd bit of special treatment.  I'd go back every year if I could but my daughter lives in Australia, so my loyalties lie there if and when I'm flush enough for a far-flung holiday. Australia is fabulous too... all the best bits of the UK and the US, without all the angst


----------



## Minisorella

Fazerloz said:


> Just like you rarely see 40 odd year old cars on the road over here, but it doesn't alter the fact more full size pickups are sold annually in the states than cars.


I can only relate what's seen in residential suburbia, where pickups never were and never will be the norm. It was always cars, 4x4s and people-movers.
If you think about the size of the country - with a landmass more or less equivalent to the size of Europe, with all the varying topography and geography that you'd find in Europe - it's not surprising at all that pickups out-sell any other vehicle. They're a necessary tool in the vast swathes of farming/agricultural country and always have been.


----------



## runnach

Minisorella when my parents retired spent a lot of time in the states ,they then visited my cousin who lives just outside Sydney......upon there return my dad said I don’t know what you two are playing at to me and my brother and the same words best of the us best of the uk = Australia ....how uncanny you mention it too


----------



## Fisherman

Minisorella said:


> I can only relate what's seen in residential suburbia, where pickups never were and never will be the norm. It was always cars, 4x4s and people-movers.
> If you think about the size of the country - with a landmass more or less equivalent to the size of Europe, with all the varying topography and geography that you'd find in Europe - it's not surprising at all that pickups out-sell any other vehicle. They're a necessary tool in the vast swathes of farming/agricultural country and always have been.



That‘s what I observed but I have only been in large cities throughout the US.


----------



## Asterix

It's good that we can debate climate change without it getting heated....


----------



## Fisherman

Asterix said:


> It's good that we can debate climate change without it getting heated....



Some old fossils need to chill out


----------



## Fazerloz

runnach said:


> As you know, oil has numerous functions, ethylene is one by product, which is used to make plastics. Gas: Powers cars, heats our homes, cooking, then of course bottled gas for our MH's.
> 
> With the pressures on any government around the oil producing world, I doubt fields will close due to GW. Millions of people are employed within O&G industry, globally. what would all these men and women do????



I know globally oil fields will not close I just wondered what these SMPs moral stances would be if ever the time came that they had the say over what are now the UK fields. 
As no doubt you know how a refinery works and the amount of different products that come from crude including medicines. I wonder how refineries will be powered heat wise for the distillation columns to work in the future if we are to stop burning  oil. These never seem to get a mention. I suppose we will ship biomass half way around the world to fire the furnaces of a oil plant. 
No doubt at the end of the day money will win out.
At times if i didn't know better I might think politicians didn't think any further ahead than the next self promotion opportunity.


----------



## Fazerloz

runnach said:


> I was at a food recycling centre a few week back on business, this is where waste food basically ends up as organic fertiliser, which being the end product, is given away free to farmers for muck spreading.
> 
> Food in, goes through various processes, with methane being one by-product, methane is captured and stored in a huge dome-like gas holder. The methane then powers a huge genny that drives the whole business, excess produced power goes back into grid =££'s for company.
> 
> There is also rainwater harvesting, which includes UV filtration. All in all was an interesting visit to see how this particular company is self-sufficient for their energy needs. They also have plants dotted around UK, but of course, food waste is required.
> 
> As for politicians, most are only interested in an easy life paid by us hard workers, then, of course, there is their tidy pension fund to look forward to.



All very laudable as long as they are allowed to keep burning the methane in the future. Which i hope sense prevails.


----------



## trevskoda

Methane is many more time harmful to earth than the gas cars put out.


----------



## Fazerloz

trevskoda said:


> Methane is many more time harmful to earth than the gas cars put out.



They are burning the methane which is basically natural gas, not venting it direct to atmosphere.


----------



## Fazerloz

All that money and technology will be ploughed pardon the pun into growing sea lettuce for when we are all forced to turn vegan as well.


----------



## SimonM

Fazerloz said:


> All that money and technology will be ploughed pardon the pun into growing sea lettuce for when we are all forced to turn vegan as well.


I’ll happily turn vegan Provided I can have the occasional lamb chop, or a sausage, or a nice bit of steak. With eggs, and a side order of chicken nuggets and...............


----------



## SimonM

Aha, methane! I could run my MH - just like old Jonesie’s van in Dad’s Army


----------



## 2cv

Surprising conclusions in this article.


----------



## trevskoda

SimonM said:


> Aha, methane! I could run my MH - just like old Jonesie’s van in Dad’s Army


The extracting and compressing of methane is 40 the vol and on expence as electric used,so not clean by any standard.


----------



## Andrew

barge1914 said:


> 2 weeks, wow, the fastest I ever managed was a 9 week maternity hospital in Saudi Arabia.


Shame they weren't actually used when needed. Good PR though, which looks like the point https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ls-say-about-its-secretive-system#maincontent


----------



## Andrew

izwozral said:


> "Boris Johnson will say that the sale of new combustion engine cars and vans will end in *2035* rather than 2040."


Anyone who believes Johnson actually does what he promises is clearly very deluded, based on previous evidence.  In this case he'll be out of office by then so it really doesn't matter what he promises.  Good click bait though isn't it, which is probably the point.


----------



## Andrew

Martin P said:


> The real problem stems from the fact that our insignificant little planet on the edge of one of many solar systems is vastly overpopulated . We can all tread as lightly as you like but it aint going to make one jot of difference


That didn't make sense.  If there are so many people then small personal improvements are multiplied up enormously.  That's a reason to make the effort, not sit back and resign yourself to doom.


----------



## Andrew

mark61 said:


> Sure homebuilders will fit solar as soon as there is a market


Or as soon as we get a government that increases minimum housing standards rather than constantly decreasing them.  And the usual house builder bleat that people buy what they build, so it must be what they want doesn't wash..  if they all build to minimum standard then there is no choice what people buy.  Just compare the boring small utilitarian boxes built here with what you get for your same money in any other European country to see that this market isn't working.


----------



## Andrew

witzend said:


> As electric come in fuel sales will drop garages will stop fuel and lpg sales prices will go thru the roof


LPG is another fossel fuel. Expect it to go too.


----------



## in h

Andrew said:


> LPG is another fossel fuel. Expect it to go too.


It is a fossil fuel, but it is a clean fossil fuel. Unfortunately there's lots of confusion between the difference. That's why diesel was encouraged as the greenest fuel and is now being discouraged as a dirty fuel. It's still greener. Hydrogen, created from renewable, electricity is clear and green. However, the tyres of vehicles burning it won't be clean. The factories making them won't be green.


----------



## Andrew

in h said:


> It is a fossil fuel, but it is a clean fossil fuel. Unfortunately there's lots of confusion between the difference. That's why diesel was encouraged as the greenest fuel and is now being discouraged as a dirty fuel. It's still greener.


A typical LPG conversion has lower NOx and CO levels then petrol and diesel but the same CO2 level as diesel. So depends what you call 'dirty'.


----------



## 2cv

Andrew said:


> A typical LPG conversion has lower NOx and CO levels then petrol and diesel but the same CO2 level as diesel. So depends what you call 'dirty'.



I don’t know where those figures came from, but this article certainly does not agree with them.


----------



## Deleted member 12839

Moped said:


> Check the carbon footprint for motorhome and airline travel.
> 
> For a motorhome to Alicante and back from Birmingham = just about 0.4 tonne total for the 1200 mile round trip and several months in Spain.
> 
> For airplane travel for 2 people for the same return trip = 1 tonne total and 1 or 2 weeks in Spain.
> 
> Maybe this point should be made to the government by the various motorhome interest groups?


A good point, we appear to be looked upon as a pest, nuisance.   We should get all the clubs to put this to the government


----------



## in h

Andrew said:


> A typical LPG conversion has lower NOx and CO levels then petrol and diesel but the same CO2 level as diesel. So depends what you call 'dirty'.


By dirty, I mean particulates and NOx, by green I mean low CO2. CO shouldn't be a factor nowadays, no matter what the fuel.


----------



## izwozral

This will be fun when we all have our electric vehicles, stop start, stop start, stop start, sto.....................................


----------



## Jayg

Things to read!








						‘The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last’: a worst case scenario for the climate in 2050
					

In their new book, the architects of the Paris climate accords, Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, lay out radical but hopeful alternatives for the future of humanity




					www.theguardian.com
				












						‘Air is cleaner than before the Industrial Revolution’: a best case scenario for the climate in 2050
					

The best case scenario for 2050: an extract from The Future We Choose, a new book by the architects of the Paris climate accords




					www.theguardian.com
				




Don’t worry only short articles!

What do you think?


----------



## davef

Jayg said:


> Things to read!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last’: a worst case scenario for the climate in 2050
> 
> 
> In their new book, the architects of the Paris climate accords, Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, lay out radical but hopeful alternatives for the future of humanity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Air is cleaner than before the Industrial Revolution’: a best case scenario for the climate in 2050
> 
> 
> The best case scenario for 2050: an extract from The Future We Choose, a new book by the architects of the Paris climate accords
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t worry only short articles!
> 
> What do you think?



I think both articles are completely stupid and typical of the Guardian's alarmist brainwashing. 
The reality is that there has been an estimated 0.8*C rise in the earth's temperature since 1880 at the end of the mini ice age - for which we should be eternally grateful.
 Plant growth is increasingly greening the planet due to the increase in CO2 as admitted by NASA. Pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm amounted to a severe CO2 famine.
The only correlation between CO2 and temperature has been shown by ice core sampling which shows that increases of temperature appear to cause an increase in CO2 after a delay of about 800 years. This is due to the slow subsequent warming of the seas which causes out-gassing of the dissolved CO2.
Tidal gauges since medieval times have shown sea level rising at the rate of about 12" per century, more recently this has slowed to about 4" per century. ( This may partly be because so much fresh water is being held back by giant hydro schemes and reservoirs.)
We are currently in an ice age - an inter-glacial period - when glaciers melt and it gets a bit warmer. We should be fearful of any cooling.
I have 16 large solar panels on my workshop roof and a 5Kw wind turbine on a 40ft tower. From personal experience I can say they produce intermittent and unpredictable power, which at the moment must be next to useless for the national grid which requires energy generation to suit demand. The turbine also suffered main bearing failure after 10 years operation - half its design life - which caused extensive damage and required a major re-build. This seems quite common even in large commercial units - they are high maintenance, and will probably have short lives.
Planting of trees is an excellent idea to benefit  future generations. I planted 2,500 trees on my land some 35 years ago - it already feels like a true wood - and  am currently getting all my firewood from wind blown or diseased trees. Worked sensibly it should give the occupier here firewood and some good timber indefinitely.


----------



## 2cv

Interesting to see how this vessel which once was employed in extracting fossil fuels is to be adapted to extract battery raw materials. Link


----------



## Jayg

Just to note, both articles came from books written.

Yes greater co2 increases plant growth, you should see my weed growth  in the summer.

My home produces the same about power it uses with 3.75kw of solar power, but we produce the most of our energy from the spring to the autumn equinox. Not when we need it most.

I cannot see any downsides from adopting a clean energy society. Can you?


----------



## Nabsim

izwozral said:


> This will be fun when we all have our electric vehicles, stop start, stop start, stop start, sto.....................................View attachment 77086


Especially as stop start switches itself off when power levels drop lol


----------



## Asterix

31 pages later and we still don't have the answer to the OPs question "is it the death knell for the combustion engine"?

Yes


----------



## Tapfitter

If I ever buy an electric car I will make sure the boot is big enough to store a diesel generator (and cans) so I can charge the car on the move and travel long distances without having to stop!


----------



## trevskoda

Tapfitter said:


> If I ever buy an electric car I will make sure the boot is big enough to store a diesel generator (and cans) so I can charge the car on the move and travel long distances without having to stop!


.
You would require a gen about six times the size of the car


----------



## in h

trevskoda said:


> .
> You would require a gen about six times the size of the car


No you wouldn't. A large suitcase gennie will give up to 3KW which is ample to do a slow charge. If you can leave it running a few hours, that'll do. However, generators are heavy on fuel. Might be cheaper to find somewhere to plug in.


----------



## GreggBear

in h said:


> No you wouldn't. A large suitcase gennie will give up to 3KW which is ample to do a slow charge. If you can leave it running a few hours, that'll do. However, generators are heavy on fuel. Might be cheaper to find somewhere to plug in.


Or alternatively, might just be easier to get a proper car with a proper diesel engine.....


----------



## Jayg

If you can buy the fuel!
And afford it?
Seriously don’t understand the problem.
What loss do we have in the adaptation of Cardon neutral fuels?
Looking back in history.
Canals, bugger for the pack horses.
Trains, bugger for the canals.
Lorries, bugger for the trains.
We adapt. Old methods die out, and leave there legacies.
What am I not seeing?


----------



## davef

Jayg said:


> Just to note, both articles came from books written.
> 
> Yes greater co2 increases plant growth, you should see my weed growth  in the summer.
> 
> My home produces the same about power it uses with 3.75kw of solar power, but we produce the most of our energy from the spring to the autumn equinox. Not when we need it most.
> 
> I cannot see any downsides from adopting a clean energy society. Can you?



The problem is "clean energy" isn't that clean. Littering the countryside with thousands of enormous reinforced concrete turbine bases, and having to cut up the thousands of colossal fibreglass turbine blades and burying them when their useful life is over - is that really "clean". Every form of energy production has a cost to the environment.
The other downside is that it makes electricity very expensive - ignore the claims that wind and solar are comparable to coal and gas generation -thats only by fiddling the figures by artificially loading the fossil fuels with carbon taxes  and subsidising the renewables. This has resulted in 2.5 million people in the UK now living in fuel poverty and subsequently an estimated 17,000 deaths from the resulting cold. Quite a downside if you are one of them!
The crazy thing is that the air has never been cleaner. Taking London as the extreme, the SPM - Suspended Particulate Matter ( soot, dust, pollen) in micro grams per cubic meter, was  250 in pre-industrial times (1700), peaked at 621 in 1890 and has been falling ever since - by 1980 it was 82, by 2000 25, by 2010 20, and by 2016 just 16. Not sure where the problem is.... we are already in a clean energy society.


----------



## Fazerloz

A friend sent me this link today.


----------



## Asterix

davef said:


> The problem is "clean energy" isn't that clean. Littering the countryside with thousands of enormous reinforced concrete turbine bases, and having to cut up the thousands of colossal fibreglass turbine blades and burying them when their useful life is over - is that really "clean". Every form of energy production has a cost to the environment.
> The other downside is that it makes electricity very expensive - ignore the claims that wind and solar are comparable to coal and gas generation -thats only by fiddling the figures by artificially loading the fossil fuels with carbon taxes  and subsidising the renewables. This has resulted in 2.5 million people in the UK now living in fuel poverty and subsequently an estimated 17,000 deaths from the resulting cold. Quite a downside if you are one of them!
> The crazy thing is that the air has never been cleaner. Taking London as the extreme, the SPM - Suspended Particulate Matter ( soot, dust, pollen) in micro grams per cubic meter, was  250 in pre-industrial times (1700), peaked at 621 in 1890 and has been falling ever since - by 1980 it was 82, by 2000 25, by 2010 20, and by 2016 just 16. Not sure where the problem is.... we are already in a clean energy society.



The numbers you give for London sounds great but completely missed the point that overall emmisions worldwide have increased enormously over the last hundred years. We need to look at absolute numbers worldwide,with many more countries becoming industrialized and massive population increases,London may well be cleaner now but the world isn't.
Take China as an example,every year for the last five or more years they've produced more clean energy than any other country,but during the same period more people entered the middle classes,with big energy requirements,new cars,houses etc. This has resulted in 50-100 new coal fired power stations being approved for construction in the coming years. The same can be applied to India,Africa and many smaller developing countries so it is imperative that rich Western countries should be leading the race to zero emmisions and doing the R&D to bring better products to the energy markets that will benefit the entire world.
Cleaning up London may have very little impact on the world but the technology to do it can be world changing.


----------



## Jayg

davef said:


> The problem is "clean energy" isn't that clean. Littering the countryside with thousands of enormous reinforced concrete turbine bases, and having to cut up the thousands of colossal fibreglass turbine blades and burying them when their useful life is over - is that really "clean". Every form of energy production has a cost to the environment.
> The other downside is that it makes electricity very expensive - ignore the claims that wind and solar are comparable to coal and gas generation -thats only by fiddling the figures by artificially loading the fossil fuels with carbon taxes  and subsidising the renewables. This has resulted in 2.5 million people in the UK now living in fuel poverty and subsequently an estimated 17,000 deaths from the resulting cold. Quite a downside if you are one of them!
> The crazy thing is that the air has never been cleaner. Taking London as the extreme, the SPM - Suspended Particulate Matter ( soot, dust, pollen) in micro grams per cubic meter, was  250 in pre-industrial times (1700), peaked at 621 in 1890 and has been falling ever since - by 1980 it was 82, by 2000 25, by 2010 20, and by 2016 just 16. Not sure where the problem is.... we are already in a clean energy society.



Whilst I agree that turbines do require an anchor on land or at Sea.

Turbines and solar have been funded  publicly in the past.

The latest development in my area  ( turbines) are going ahead without additional funding, will stand on its own, profit or loss.

These ways of producing electricity,  green energy is the way forward.

using sunlight produced millions of years ago is not the way forward ( fossil fuels) think of the term we use to describe them!

Whilst I do accept that the path to the future is littered with inconsistencies, our future must be based on consuming less of all the resources that are finite.

As we are not 100% sure of the science being given to us, the prudent way forward it caution, as that is the safest way.

Unless you all think carrying on being consumers, and letting the rest of the population of the world reaching our level is the Better way forward?


----------



## Asterix

Jayg said:


> Whilst I agree that turbines do require an anchor on land or at Sea.
> 
> Turbines and solar have been funded  publicly in the past.
> 
> The latest development in my area  ( turbines) are going ahead without additional funding, will stand on its own, profit or loss.
> 
> These ways of producing electricity,  green energy is the way forward.
> 
> using sunlight produced millions of years ago is not the way forward ( fossil fuels) think of the term we use to describe them!
> 
> Whilst I do accept that the path to the future is littered with inconsistencies, our future must be based on consuming less of all the resources that are finite.
> 
> As we are not 100% sure of the science being given to us, the prudent way forward it caution, as that is the safest way.
> 
> Unless you all think carrying on being consumers, and letting the rest of the population of the world reaching our level is the Better way forward?











						World’s Largest Floating Wind Turbine Begins Generating Power
					

The first of three 8.4-megawatt turbines starts spinning as WindFloat Atlantic joins the growing fleet of floating offshore pilots.




					www.greentechmedia.com


----------



## Jayg

Ballast also need containing.

it does not stay upright by inertia.


----------



## trevskoda

in h said:


> No you wouldn't. A large suitcase gennie will give up to 3KW which is ample to do a slow charge. If you can leave it running a few hours, that'll do. However, generators are heavy on fuel. Might be cheaper to find somewhere to plug in.


Here is the info


----------



## davef

Unless sufficient electricity can affordably be stored  to supply the grid for periods of low sunlight - probably 4 months of the winter, a or periods of low wind speeds - probably several weeks, both solar and wind power are not viable power sources. The annual renewable subsidy is £10 billion.
Patrick Moore one of the founders of Greenpeace and a former director of Greenpeace Intl. gave a very interesting talk on climate change and the importance of  CO2. Unusually for an environmentalist he is also a scientist. Here is a link to his speech given to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers which is well worth reading   https://www.technocracy.news/former...RXkoEFNX84R1fM6Wg_1LIGjVZZfVeqKEPXgJ_aW8ZiKBI


----------



## Fisherman

davef said:


> Unless sufficient electricity can affordably be stored  to supply the grid for periods of low sunlight - probably 4 months of the winter, a or periods of low wind speeds - probably several weeks, both solar and wind power are not viable power sources. The annual renewable subsidy is £10 billion.
> Patrick Moore one of the founders of Greenpeace and a former director of Greenpeace Intl. gave a very interesting talk on climate change and the importance of  CO2. Unusually for an environmentalist he is also a scientist. Here is a link to his speech given to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers which is well worth reading   https://www.technocracy.news/former...RXkoEFNX84R1fM6Wg_1LIGjVZZfVeqKEPXgJ_aW8ZiKBI



The possibility of human induced global warming is not there to be “torn to shreads” neither is the counter argument. 
What Patrick Moore states that there is no conclusive evidence of human induced global warming is factually correct, but it ignores completely the possibility that CO2 levels are the cause. Also he writes of small changes in temperature as if they will have little effect on life on this planet of ours. But most environmental scientists would counter that with valid proven arguments that small changes in temperature can have dramatic even catastrophic changes to life on Earth. Life on Earth is fragile and depends heavily on a balance of environmental factors with little latitude for change.

To ignore the possibility of human induced global warming and its consequences is wreck less in the extreme. 
What’s required is not extremist views from either side such as extinction rebellion who have severely damaged the argument for human induced global warming, or arguments like this. What’s required is a reasoned approach taking cognicence  of all arguments. Extreme views from either side are completely counter productive.

We also have to carry out these changes in a balanced manner in order to try and maintain the current equilibriums in our society. Because if we don’t we threaten to damage severely our civilisation, through damage to our fragile interconnected economies. This is what extinction rebellion refuse to consider. They are hell bent on measures that if carried out to soon could lead to catastrophic events for us all. But equally we must realise that human induced global warming is a possibility.

We pay out for insurance each year for our homes to negate the possible effects of fire, flood, theft or damage. We do this with the expectation that we will not require to make a claim. But we do this because we accept the possibility. Not to insure our home would be wreck less, and ignoring the possibility of human induced global warming is even more wreck less.


----------



## ricc

whether or not an individual agrees with the concept of man made global warming it is certain that one day we will run out of fossil fuels, before the final crunch they will become more difficult to access and hence more expensive.
electricity does seem to be the way forward both for renewable generation and for what you can do with it after youve got it.
personally i dont like the concept of nucleur both from the accident standpoint and what the hell do you do with the normal radioactive waste both from generation and end of life plant.
if we go with renewables from solar and wind we have to think about storage and evening out fluctuations of supply, that may mean changing lifestyles and work practices to match demand to supply.  or could be simple chemical or physical storage.... batteries, generating hydrogen that can be stored,   or even pumping water from sea level upto mountain lakes for hydro power on demand.

in this neck of the woods a bristol channel tidal scheme that would give reliable renewable power was proposed years ago but killed because it would change the wild birds habitat....can we be that considerate of the birds in the future? .... personally if the choice was a tidal barrage or hinckley point c nuclear ...and hinckley is going to raise the channel water temp anyway,,, id rather have the tidal


----------



## Fazerloz

E10 petrol.









						E10 petrol explained: checker tool, UK prices and is it OK for your car? | Auto Express
					

What is E10 fuel and will your car run on it? Here’s everything you need to know about E10...



					www.autoexpress.co.uk


----------



## trevskoda

Back to a 2 stroke engine as they will run on paraffin ,i have two old white yam paraffin outboards in the garage and i remember running a NSU quickly on a petrol paraffin mix in the old days.


----------



## Tonybvi

trevskoda said:


> Here is the infoView attachment 77166



Some real facts from somebody who has an EV.  My battery is 100Kw - at the moment I think that is the largest on offer in the market but some of the smaller city cars have considerably smaller batteries, down to 40Kw or so. The maths should be simple, simply divide the size of the battery by the power of the charger and that will be how long a charge from 0% to 100% takes.  i.e. a 100Kw battery on a super fast 150Kw DC charger will take 40 minutes, the same battery on a 7Kw AC home charger will take over 14 hours.  But only a fool would let his battery run down to 0%, most folk panic at 10% or so.  It harms the battery to regularly charge to 100% and leave it standing fully charged so 90% or less is best.  When a battery is cold it cannot take a heavy charge, when a battery is nearing 100% charging slows completely.  As a general rule on a Tesla 20 to 70% takes roughly the same time as 70 to 90%,and 90 to 100% takes even longer.
All this to say the figures given in the quote referred to above can be taken with a huge pinch of salt!


----------



## Fazerloz

Global warming mmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> The possibility of human induced global warming is not there to be “torn to shreads” neither is the counter argument.
> What Patrick Moore states that there is no conclusive evidence of human induced global warming is factually correct, but it ignores completely the possibility that CO2 levels are the cause. Also he writes of small changes in temperature as if they will have little effect on life on this planet of ours. But most environmental scientists would counter that with valid proven arguments that small changes in temperature can have dramatic even catastrophic changes to life on Earth. Life on Earth is fragile and depends heavily on a balance of environmental factors with little latitude for change.



Don't we just want the truth to be told and not to be manipulated for whatever reasons.
Who/ What can you trust. Then look at the link below the vid.














						polarbearscience
					

Polar bear science - past and present




					polarbearscience.com


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> Don't we just want the truth to be told and not to be manipulated for whatever reasons.
> Who/ What can you trust. Then look at the link below the vid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polarbearscience
> 
> 
> Polar bear science - past and present
> 
> 
> 
> 
> polarbearscience.com



Sorry I don't feel the least bit manipulated Faze, and scientists are attempting to advise as best they can a very complex issue.
As I have said repeatedly I don't sit in any of the two extreme camps.
I am neither a global warming denier, nor a follower of a lunatic fringe like extinction rebellion Faze.
I sit somewhere in the middle, and as such I reckon that the science may have some credence.
For me completely ignoring the warnings is simply not an option.
As for the truth, the truth is we are not 100% certain either way.


----------



## Jayg

Despite all the, I Believe, or I Don’t Believe arguments posted so far.

What do we loose by adopting a low carbon society?

If we did adapt to using none Fossil fuels as a source of power, the technology would improve by leaps and bounds.

Look into history at the first steam train “Stephenson rocket” compared with the “Flying Scotsman “ similar/ same technology.

If we adopt this approach to clean energy, in one or two decades where will we be?

Not photoelectric cells , but inferred cells

Not nuclear reactors , fusion reactors.

Thick back to when we faced adversity, and the solutions we allowed to come forward.

So what do we have to fear from a clean energy society?

Just your shares in old fossil fuels companies?


----------



## Fisherman

Jayg said:


> Despite all the, I Believe, or I Don’t Believe arguments posted so far.
> 
> What do we loose by adopting a low carbon society?
> 
> If we did adapt to using none Fossil fuels as a source of power, the technology would improve by leaps and bounds.
> 
> Look into history at the first steam train “Stephenson rocket” compared with the “Flying Scotsman “ similar/ same technology.
> 
> If we adopt this approach to clean energy, in one or two decades where will we be?
> 
> Not photoelectric cells , but inferred cells
> 
> Not nuclear reactors , fusion reactors.
> 
> Thick back to when we faced adversity, and the solutions we allowed to come forward.
> 
> So what do we have to fear from a clean energy society?
> 
> Just your shares in old fossil fuels companies?



Nuclear  fusion will transform everything, but it’s probably not going to be with us for several decades. Just think safe nuclear power, with no radiation, with power stations costing a fraction of current nuclear power stations producing 50 to 100 times more power. And they will not last for decades, but hundreds of years.
and when they are finished no nuclear waste to dispose of.
Now that’s the future and it will happen this century, and when it does it will be the game changer we are all waiting for.


----------



## Fazerloz

Jayg said:


> Despite all the, I Believe, or I Don’t Believe arguments posted so far.
> 
> What do we loose by adopting a low carbon society?
> 
> If we did adapt to using none Fossil fuels as a source of power, the technology would improve by leaps and bounds.
> 
> Look into history at the first steam train “Stephenson rocket” compared with the “Flying Scotsman “ similar/ same technology.
> 
> If we adopt this approach to clean energy, in one or two decades where will we be?
> 
> Not photoelectric cells , but inferred cells
> 
> Not nuclear reactors , fusion reactors.
> 
> Thick back to when we faced adversity, and the solutions we allowed to come forward.
> 
> So what do we have to fear from a clean energy society?
> 
> Just your shares in old fossil fuels companies?




What do we have to lose, only a unbelievable amount of money as a country, that could be better spent.


----------



## colinm

The OP is about vehicle emission's, in the UK it is estimated 38,000 people per year die early due Deisel emissions, about the same as the very worst case scenario for Corvid 19.


----------



## Fisherman

Fazerloz said:


> What do we have to lose, only a unbelievable amount of money as a country, that could be better spent.



possibly 40,000 not dying from diesel fumes every year alone makes it all worth while.


----------



## davef

colinmd said:


> The OP is about vehicle emission's, in the UK it is estimated 38,000 people per year die early due Deisel emissions, about the same as the very worst case scenario for Corvid 19.



There is absolutely no basis in facts for that figure. Like the projected temperature increase it is just based on computer models, with the opinion that if there were no diesel emissions people might live for an extra day or two - with that being added up to give some such arbitrary figure. Computer models just confirm the bias you put into them. In actuality the air has never been cleaner.


----------



## Robmac

Fisherman said:


> possibly 40,000 not dying from diesel fumes every year alone makes it all worth while.



I respect the sentiment, but suspect that you are driving a diesel motorhome? (apologies if I'm wrong on that).

However, if you really think that you are contributing to the massacre of 40,000 people per year, surely you would give up motorhoming in a heartbeat? Or am I being too simplistic.


----------



## Fisherman

Robmac said:


> I respect the sentiment, but suspect that you are driving a diesel motorhome? (apologies if I'm wrong on that).
> 
> However, if you really think that you are contributing to the massacre of 40,000 people per year, surely you would give up motorhoming in a heartbeat? Or am I being too simplistic.



what about my car will I give that up as well. Maybe take the bus but it’s diesel also, get the train oh it’s diesel also. If motorhomes powered by electric become available I may buy 
one. But my next car will be petrol or electric. We rarely drive in cities with the motorhome and we only do 3,000 miles a year on it. Possibly you think I support extinction rebellion, I don’t.


----------



## Fazerloz

colinmd said:


> The OP is about vehicle emission's, in the UK it is estimated 38,000 people per year die early due Deisel emissions, about the same as the very worst case scenario for Corvid 19.



That is simply a lie. The figure is globally not UK, That study is over 2 years old based on a single computer model using best guess figures and wording like "could have contributed to." in relation to deaths. Nothing but scaremongering,


----------



## Robmac

Fisherman said:


> what about my car will I give that up as well. Maybe take the bus but it’s diesel also, get the train oh it’s diesel also. If motorhomes powered by electric become available I may buy
> one. But my next car will be petrol or electric. We rarely drive in cities with the motorhome and we only do 3,000 miles a year on it. Possibly you think I support extinction rebellion, I don’t.



No, I don't think that you support the extinction rebellion (I don't even know what it is!).

But motorhoming is not a necessity so are you saying that it's ok to contribute to these deaths just a bit? I do applaud your choice of doing low mileage, not in cities etc. and your decision to go petrol/electric. 

It all depends on how much you believe the environmental questions and how strong your beliefs are.

My post was not really a crticism by the way. We are all contributing but nobody seems 100% sure on where the harm lies.


----------



## colinm

Fazerloz said:


> That is simply a lie. The figure is globally not UK, That study is over 2 years old based on a single computer model using best guess figures and wording like "could have contributed to." in relation to deaths. Nothing but scaremongering,



Yes I realised the figure was globally when looking at post a few minutes ago, as for rest, please show a study which refutes this.


----------



## Fazerloz

colinmd said:


> Yes I realised the figure was globally when looking at post a few minutes ago, as for rest, please show a study which refutes this.



Do some homework. I did.


----------



## Asterix

Fazerloz said:


> What do we have to lose, only a unbelievable amount of money as a country, that could be better spent.



Yes there is upfront costs,but longer term there's massive savings to be had,South Australia is a good example of consumers saving millions in the first year that Tesla installed a huge battery bank,and a more recent example from the UK of consumers being paid to use electricity. There will be job losses in the fossil fuel industries to be replaced by jobs in green energy,what are the "unbelievable amounts of money" that you refer to?









						Thousands were paid to use extra renewable electricity on windy weekend
					

UK homes using new smart-energy tariffs urged to take advantage of record windfarm power




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## 2cv

Asterix said:


> Yes there is upfront costs,but longer term there's massive savings to be had,South Australia is a good example of consumers saving millions in the first year that Tesla installed a huge battery bank,and a more recent example from the UK of consumers being paid to use electricity. There will be job losses in the fossil fuel industries to be replaced by jobs in green energy,*what are the "unbelievable amounts of money" that you refer to?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands were paid to use extra renewable electricity on windy weekend
> 
> 
> UK homes using new smart-energy tariffs urged to take advantage of record windfarm power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com



Not entirely due to environmental policies but largely affected by them car sales are in a steady decline, affecting employment prospects for many thousands. Link
Just this week thousands of jobs have been lost at Flybe, largely because of APD, pushed as an environmental tax.
These are just a couple of the many examples of where “unbelievable amounts of money” that belief in the co2 theories are costing.
Climate change policies could well leave the next generation with a very damaged world economy to live in. If the theories are wrong, we’re unnecessarily making life difficult for the next generations.


----------



## Fazerloz

Asterix said:


> Yes there is upfront costs,but longer term there's massive savings to be had,South Australia is a good example of consumers saving millions in the first year that Tesla installed a huge battery bank,and a more recent example from the UK of consumers being paid to use electricity. There will be job losses ile country n the fossil fuel industries to be replaced by jobs in green energy,what are the "unbelievable amounts of money" that you refer to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands were paid to use extra renewable electricity on windy weekend
> 
> 
> UK homes using new smart-energy tariffs urged to take advantage of record windfarm power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com



Are you on commission from Tesla. Its not uncommon in the motor trade. As i said before if only the whole country could afford a £40,000 Tesla then the world would seem not green but very rosy.


----------



## Asterix

2cv said:


> Not entirely due to environmental policies but largely affected by them car sales are in a steady decline, affecting employment prospects for many thousands. Link
> Just this week thousands of jobs have been lost at Flybe, largely because of APD, pushed as an environmental tax.
> These are just a couple of the many examples of where “unbelievable amounts of money” that belief in the co2 theories are costing.
> Climate change policies could well leave the next generation with a very damaged world economy to live in. If the theories are wrong, we’re unnecessarily making life difficult for the next generations.



The same thing happened when we stopped relying on steam engines,but new technologies replaced those job losses,I don't see any difference this time around.
Personally I'd like to see the world's economy trashed,only wishful thinking on my part as I think it unlikely to happen but continuous growth can only end badly.


----------



## 2cv

Asterix said:


> The same thing happened when we stopped relying on steam engines,but new technologies replaced those job losses,I don't see any difference this time around.
> *Personally I'd like to see the world's economy trashed*,only wishful thinking on my part as I think it unlikely to happen but continuous growth can only end badly.



This would undoubtedly lead to great hardship for most people, as in the 1930s. Seems a rather strange aspiration.


----------



## Fazerloz

Asterix said:


> The same thing happened when we stopped relying on steam engines,but new technologies replaced those job losses,I don't see any difference this time around.
> Personally I'd like to see the world's economy trashed,only wishful thinking on my part as I think it unlikely to happen but continuous growth can only end badly.



Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Fisherman

Robmac said:


> No, I don't think that you support the extinction rebellion (I don't even know what it is!).
> 
> But motorhoming is not a necessity so are you saying that it's ok to contribute to these deaths just a bit? I do applaud your choice of doing low mileage, not in cities etc. and your decision to go petrol/electric.
> 
> It all depends on how much you believe the environmental questions and how strong your beliefs are.
> 
> My post was not really a crticism by the way. We are all contributing but nobody seems 100% sure on where the harm lies.



extinction rebellion are the group who protested in London closing off roads, and climbing on top of trains in the tube stations. They want us all to stop driving cars and living how we do now, and right now. 

I believe we have to change gradually over decades in order that we don’t destroy our economies. Diesel fumes kill people in built up areas such as cities and large towns. Bristol has announced a ban on all diesel vehicles at certain times of the day, and other cities will follow suit.

I will be buying a new car early 2021, and I am looking at petrol and electric. I will not buy a diesel. If a suitable non diesel Motorhome was available I would do likewise.


----------



## Asterix

2cv said:


> This would undoubtedly lead to great hardship for most people, as in the 1930s. Seems a rather strange aspiration.



Hardship has got to be better than oblivion.
Who gains from a thriving economy? Certainly not your average worker as already proven over the last forty odd years of the trickle up effect.
Who loses from a trashed economy? Mainly billionaires who are likely to end up as lowly millionaires,my heart really bleeds for them.
The one percenters always push for economic growth,which means more low paid jobs,which means more of the world getting tarmacked over,which means more population/immigration required,which means more housing shortages,more congestion,the endless spiral of growth,pollution,consumerism,species extinction, until it ends up as wars over dwindling resources. That is what great hardship looks like.


----------



## 2cv

Asterix said:


> Hardship has got to be better than oblivion.
> Who gains from a thriving economy? Certainly not your average worker as already proven over the last forty odd years of the trickle up effect.
> *Who loses from a trashed economy? Mainly billionaires who are likely to end up as lowly millionaires,my heart really bleeds for them.*
> The one percenters always push for economic growth,which means more low paid jobs,which means more of the world getting tarmacked over,which means more population/immigration required,which means more housing shortages,more congestion,the endless spiral of growth,pollution,consumerism,species extinction, until it ends up as wars over dwindling resources. That is what great hardship looks like.




History says that the poor suffer most in a depression. Not only that, but should the world economy fail the most affected would be in the third world, where rather than just losing luxuries survival would become a problem.


----------



## trevskoda

Well they will never get my spuds.


----------



## Martin P

Or my homebrew beer





trevskoda said:


> Well they will never get my spuds.


----------



## Asterix

2cv said:


> History says that the poor suffer most in a depression. Not only that, but should the world economy fail the most affected would be in the third world, where rather than just losing luxuries survival would become a problem.



No need to wait for a depression,the poor are suffering now,the boom times have done nothing for the lower rungs of society and the upper rungs of society really couldn't give a stuff. You can maintain the fantasy of a trickle down economy that lifts everyone up but it's worn a bit thin over the years.


----------



## Asterix

New battery tech looks like making lithium batteries much cheaper....


----------



## 2cv

Asterix said:


> No need to wait for a depression,the poor are suffering now,the boom times have done nothing for the lower rungs of society and the upper rungs of society really couldn't give a stuff. You can maintain the fantasy of a trickle down economy that lifts everyone up but it's worn a bit thin over the years.



I can only say that it’s not good to be putting the prosperity of future generations at risk on the basis of a disputed theory which may turn out to be unfounded. Not to mention that the replacements suggested require raw materials whose sourcing could well lead to ecological disaster.
Maybe we just need to be patient as the Earth heats inevitably up due to solar activity over the next few hundreds of millions of years and todays problems become relatively trivial.


----------



## Asterix

2cv said:


> I can only say that it’s not good to be putting the prosperity of future generations at risk on the basis of a disputed theory which may turn out to be unfounded. Not to mention that the replacements suggested require raw materials whose sourcing could well lead to ecological disaster.
> Maybe we just need to be patient as the Earth heats inevitably up due to solar activity over the next few hundreds of millions of years and todays problems become relatively trivial.




The constant chase for prosperity is the heart of the problem,the entire ethos of what we value as a species needs to change.


----------



## 2cv

Asterix said:


> The constant chase for prosperity is the heart of the problem,the entire ethos of what we value as a species needs to change.



Prosperity enables us to pursue such things as running a motorhome as well as the basics of eating good healthy food and maybe enjoying an alcoholic beverage. It also supports good education and healthcare, as well as a relatively supportive society. I honestly don’t agree that we’d all be better off avoiding it.


----------



## trevskoda

2cv said:


> Prosperity enables us to pursue such things as running a motorhome as well as the basics of eating good healthy food and maybe enjoying an alcoholic beverage. It also supports good education and healthcare, as well as a relatively supportive society. I honestly don’t agree that we’d all be better off avoiding it.


Well my g/father used to say why educate woman as they end up with babys  cook and clean,head down now.


----------



## Asterix

2cv said:


> Prosperity enables us to pursue such things as running a motorhome as well as the basics of eating good healthy food and maybe enjoying an alcoholic beverage. It also supports good education and healthcare, as well as a relatively supportive society. I honestly don’t agree that we’d all be better off avoiding it.



I'm not saying we should all become paupers but rather how we measure our success needs to be changed,we've been programmed all our lives to equate success with wealth. 
Here's a recent example of how it can be different,some countries are already changing the formula of how GDP measures "success".









						5 ways GDP gets it totally wrong as a measure of our success
					

The beauty of gross domestic product is its single figure. It squishes all of human activity into a couple of digits, like a frog jammed into a matchbox. But this condensing is also GDP’s flaw.




					www.weforum.org


----------



## 2cv

Asterix said:


> I'm not saying we should all become paupers but rather how we measure our success needs to be changed,we've been programmed all our lives to equate success with wealth.
> Here's a recent example of how it can be different,some countries are already changing the formula of how GDP measures "success".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 ways GDP gets it totally wrong as a measure of our success
> 
> 
> The beauty of gross domestic product is its single figure. It squishes all of human activity into a couple of digits, like a frog jammed into a matchbox. But this condensing is also GDP’s flaw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.weforum.org



I can agree that possibly GDP is not a great measuring tool. I’m pleased that you see that all becoming paupers is not a good thing.
My point is that by reacting to a possibly false theory, in the future our descendants may end up paupers, with a potentially damaged ecology in our attempts to nullify the effects suggested by the possibly false theory. Not a perfect scenario by any means.


----------



## Asterix

2cv said:


> I can agree that possibly GDP is not a great measuring tool. I’m pleased that you see that all becoming paupers is not a good thing.
> My point is that by reacting to a possibly false theory, in the future our descendants may end up paupers, with a potentially damaged ecology in our attempts to nullify the effects suggested by the possibly false theory. Not a perfect scenario by any means.



I'm struggling to see a big cost,it's just moving money from a dirty economy to a clean one,if anything our descendants will have cheap/free clean energy and better quality of life. It may do stuff-all on an ecological level but I just can't see a downside to decarbonizing our economy. If we stay the current course we are sentencing our descendants to endless wars over resources,we have to focus on minimizing use of all resources,if there's no push in that direction there will never be any incentive to research sustainable energy and the only winners in that scenario are the fossil fuel companies.


----------



## 2cv

Asterix said:


> I'm struggling to see a big cost,it's just moving money from a dirty economy to a clean one,if anything our descendants will have cheap/free clean energy and better quality of life. It may do stuff-all on an ecological level but I just can't see a downside to decarbonizing our economy. If we stay the current course we are sentencing our descendants to endless wars over resources,we have to focus on minimizing use of all resources,if there's no push in that direction there will never be any incentive to research sustainable energy and the only winners in that scenario are the fossil fuel companies.



Unfortunately the future wars will be over the limited raw materials supply for battery production, at least if we continue down that path.
The big cost is beginning to be paid by those in the car industry and none “green” transport sectors. After the 2000 jobs lost at Flybe today there is talk of thousands more to go in their support companies. Norwegian appears to be next in line for extinction with thousands of jobs lost.


----------



## Asterix

2cv said:


> Unfortunately the future wars will be over the limited raw materials supply for battery production, at least if we continue down that path.
> The big cost is beginning to be paid by those in the car industry and none “green” transport sectors. After the 2000 jobs lost at Flybe today there is talk of thousands more to go in their support companies. Norwegian appears to be next in line for extinction with thousands of jobs lost.



Car plants and airlines disappearing is excellent news,I'm hoping this virus will help sort out some cruise companies as well.


----------



## 2cv

Asterix said:


> Car plants and airlines disappearing is excellent news,I'm hoping this virus will help sort out some cruise companies as well.



I don’t think that thousands with mortgages who may lose their homes would agree, nor would their dependants.


----------



## GreggBear

2cv said:


> This would undoubtedly lead to great hardship for most people, as in the 1930s. Seems a rather strange aspiration.


A bit of hardship wouldn't be a bad thing for most folk, life has got a bit too easy of late...


----------



## 2cv

GreggBear said:


> A bit of hardship wouldn't be a bad thing for most folk, life has got a bit too easy of late...



A bit of hardship is what the wealthy could expect. It would be the poor as usual who would suffer most, possibly being deprived of basic needs. I’m amazed that some people think that such a situation is desirable.


----------



## GreggBear

Of course I don't find it desirable, just pointing out that life for a lot of "poor" people ain't so bad. How many of these so called poor people (me included) have mobile phones, colour TVs, run a vehicle etc?
Just pointing out that many poor people in this country don't know what poor means. Maybe a lot of us/them should assess their priorities & appreciate more of what they have rather than worrying about what they have not. Nobody wants to see anyone in poverty, especially me, just saying the standard of living in this country is not too bad for most people, even though the division between "us" & "them" is absolutely shameful.....


----------



## Fisherman

This thread has now been reduced to hoping that corona virus will sort things out.
Really sad comment.
And asterix, you may end up being sorted out, or a member of your family, or a dear friend. Be very careful what you wish for, it may personally affect you.


----------



## Fisherman

GreggBear said:


> Of course I don't find it desirable, just pointing out that life for a lot of "poor" people ain't so bad. How many of these so called poor people (me included) have mobile phones, colour TVs, run a vehicle etc?
> Just pointing out that many poor people in this country don't know what poor means. Maybe a lot of us/them should assess their priorities & appreciate more of what they have rather than worrying about what they have not. Nobody wants to see anyone in poverty, especially me, just saying the standard of living in this. Pun try is not too bad for most people, even though the division between "us" & "them" is absolutely shameful.....



Poverty is relative Gregg.
A poor person here would be regarded as wealthy in some third world countries.
But wealth is not always measured in material things.
I know millionaires who lead poor lives, and poorer people who have much better quality of life. Life is what you make it for most, and poverty is relative not only to how much money you have or don’t have. Taking our hobby as an example, it’s not those with £100,000 hymen’s who necessarily get the most from Motorhoming, many with old vans get so much more from their chosen hobby.


----------



## Robmac

Fisherman said:


> Poverty is relative Gregg.
> A poor person here would be regarded as wealthy in some third world countries.
> But wealth is not always measured in material things.
> I know millionaires who lead poor lives, and poorer people who have much better quality of life. Life is what you make it for most, and poverty is relative not only to how much money you have or don’t have. Taking our hobby as an example, it’s not those with £100,000 hymen’s who necessarily get the most from Motorhoming, many with old vans get so much more from their chosen hobby.



Freudian slip in there somewhere?


----------



## GreggBear

My point exactly. I know people who are not money rich yet enjoy life & have a positive outlook. Conversely some people think they are in poverty, while they sit smoking, drinking & watching their big tv! If your happiness is only measured by material things you will never be truly happy IMHO the more people have the more they need to feel the buzz. 
Look for the things in life that money can't buy, birdsong, a smile from a stranger, the warm sun on your back etc. When you can find happiness in those things you don't need a pile of money....


----------



## ricc

my 8 year old grand daughter lives where i lived when i was eight....she goes to the same school i went to....i cycled on a bycycle 2 miles each way whatever the weather...she gets a ride in a car....our family car was an end of life austin cambridge...one of theres is a year old vw estate.
  theres no comparison between the material trappings of childhood then and now.....and that extends to adult life as well.....we bought a new 40 inch tv last year.....pound wise it was exactly the same price as the one i bought 40 years ago....when hundred pound a week was silly money.   the material trappings are as cheap as theyve ever been when you compare them to hours of labour expended to get the money to buy them.


----------



## davef

Supposedly an old Chinese proverb - " He who knows he has enough is rich."


----------



## Asterix

Fisherman said:


> This thread has now been reduced to hoping that corona virus will sort things out.
> Really sad comment.
> And asterix, you may end up being sorted out, or a member of your family, or a dear friend. Be very careful what you wish for, it may personally affect you.



I'm not advocating that I want to drop dead for the sake of the planet but the reality is that no single individual is worth more than any other and we really do need a billion or two to drop dead,life is just a numbers game.


----------



## davef

Fisherman said:


> This thread has now been reduced to hoping that corona virus will sort things out.
> Really sad comment.
> And asterix, you may end up being sorted out, or a member of your family, or a dear friend. Be very careful what you wish for, it may personally affect you.



According to the Georgia Guide Stones ( http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm ), the Elite envision the New World Order as having controlled reproduction and a maximum world population of half a billion people, about 1/14 th of current level. If the coronavirus doesn't achieve this they appear to have this in hand with the roll-out of 5G. One of the many claimed damages to health from these localised powerful microwave transmitters is sterility in young males.....


----------



## Fisherman

The internet is a wonderful tool.
But it’s filled with extremist views on everything from brexit, to making scrambled egg. The trick is to know how to make scrambled egg before going online, then removing the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## peter palance

izwozral said:


> "New *petrol* and *diesel* cars *banned* from *2035*. A *ban* on selling new *petrol* and *diesel* cars will be brought forward by five years to improve air quality, the prime minister will announce today. Boris Johnson will say that the sale of new combustion engine cars and vans will end in *2035* rather than 2040."
> 
> Don't panic, don't panic, no mention of MH's or vans or lorries.
> 
> That's alright then?


here in spain speed boats cabin cruser boat of every size ,motor bikes , no seen one electric animals ,big planes.
on yes i came on one, are they bothered, today i saw 2 electric motor bikes,well its a start. ok pj


----------



## mark61

Exactly how I like my scrambled egg, extreme.


----------



## Fazerloz

Fisherman said:


> The internet is a wonderful tool.
> But it’s filled with extremist views on everything from brexit, to making scrambled egg. The trick is to know how to make scrambled egg before going online, then removing the wheat from the chaff.



Always wise to remove wheat and chaff from scrambled eggs.


----------



## in h

Fazerloz said:


> Always wise to remove wheat and chaff from scrambled eggs.


Leave the wheat in, unless you're gluten intolerant. But I'd take the chaff out.


----------



## colinm

Well here's an interesting thing, as per the OP the petrol/deisel ban is being brought forward to better air quality.
Now it's announced we are leaving EASA, at first I was puzzled, but then it became obvious, BoJo wants to set us up as a maintenance hub for N reg biz jets in Europe, nice business plan, not so good for air quality.


----------



## Asterix

This is what will kill the combustion engine,I can't see a valid argument for not going electric.









						Electric cars produce less CO2 than petrol vehicles, study confirms
					

Finding will come as boost to governments seeking to move to net zero carbon emissions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## trevskoda

Cannot see me getting an electric car for £10 some time soon.


----------



## in h

Asterix said:


> This is what will kill the combustion engine,I can't see a valid argument for not going electric.


If you were concerned about the environment, you'd not have a car.
A typical electric car has a battery capacity of about 65kWh. That's the equivalent of four litres of diesel. It's very impressive that they get such good performance form so little energy.  Still a long way to go to be the vehicle of choice for many people.


----------



## Asterix

in h said:


> If you were concerned about the environment, you'd not have a car.
> A typical electric car has a battery capacity of about 65kWh. That's the equivalent of four litres of diesel. It's very impressive that they get such good performance form so little energy.  Still a long way to go to be the vehicle of choice for many people.



I am concerned about the environment which is why I don't have a car. It's just a pity my daily driver is a 7.5t truck lol.


----------



## in h

Asterix said:


> I am concerned about the environment which is why I don't have a car. It's just a pity my daily driver is a 7.5t truck lol.


lol? You think it is funny?


----------



## Asterix

in h said:


> lol? You think it is funny?



If I could afford electric I'd be there in a heartbeat,I drive and live in what I can afford.


----------



## Robmac

in h said:


> lol? You think it is funny?



To be fair, I think his carbon footprint is probably a lot lower than running a standard house and car.


----------



## Asterix

Robmac said:


> To be fair, I think his carbon footprint is probably a lot lower than running a standard house and car.



That's my thoughts too and it's parked up six months of the year while I'm working.


----------



## in h

Robmac said:


> To be fair, I think his carbon footprint is probably a lot lower than running a standard house and car.


I am sure it is. I actually did the calculations. When I'm away in the motorhome, my carbon footprint is less than half what it is when I'm at home. 
The main difference is in the heating, so the saving is less in Summer.


----------

