What's the problem with electric vehicles

[dutchie01]

Well, i never said that batteries used to propel cars are good for the planet and by the way a 75kwh batterypack contains some 8kg lithium.

All i wanted to say is that whatever means of transport we choose it does not help the enironment, seems logic?

And saying that dirty oil has been around since 1800 and we seem to be doing fine? really?

 

[toffee_pie]

12 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

Well, i never said that batteries used to propel cars are good for the planet and by the way a 75kwh batterypack contains some 8kg lithium.

All i wanted to say is that whatever means of transport we choose it does not help the enironment, seems logic?

And saying that dirty oil has been around since 1800 and we seem to be doing fine? really?

 

There's nothing logical about banning combustion engine cars accountable for less than one percent of global greenhouse gases for electric cars with that half tonne of lithium batteries baggage per vehicle and which most people cannot afford. What's difficult to understand here? Even before this EV bs kicked off almost every car on the road was on finance of some description and them cars cost a fraction of EVs. 

Banning them in the UK is bad enough but this is global, and the UK is apparently an affluent wealthy nation.

[Mr Vlad]

Interesting link you posted Bernard. That's the kind of link an EVangelist would post. WOW 8kg of lithium in a 75Kw Battery? If I remember right I read somewhere that a young life is lost in the mining of just 10kg of lithium. Going back to that unfortunate incident in Goi in 2004. Oh yes oil companies have an effing shed load of explaining to do regarding their ignorance towards life over profit.

And yes Eric nothing at all logical about the worlds banning sales of new ice vehicles. Its good that a few countries have spoken out and the planned year of banning new ice sales is kind of stalled and looks to be put back who knows how many more years.

EV's are Not the answer. ICE vehicles aren't the answer either. Hydrogen will have its influence as will possibly Methane and fusion developed electricity. Each will have their merits oh as will synthetic fuel which Porsche are well into. 

ICE vehicles are here to stay. And I for one will be driving one till I give up my licence in about 30 years or sooner depending on my health. 

[toffee_pie]

My VED is up on April 1st(April fool? sadly not) that's £630 down the pan but it's better than having an electric vehicle. Most of the nasty crap in the air is Nox from diesel, anyone with a functional nose can smell it a mile away

[GMB]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if it was £630 then it will be £695 from April 1st. I am sure others will confirm.

Mine is due April 1st too. I am going to do 6 months and SORN it over winter. 700 quid for 3000 miles p.a. No way🥸

Thanks Mr Hunt for nothing. Pension increase 10.1% - No. The personal allowance fix means you can take 20% off the increased amount for tax on the private pension. Tax codes already changed for April 1st.

Bar stewards.

[toffee_pie]

4 hours ago, GMB said:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if it was £630 then it will be £695 from April 1st. I am sure others will confirm.

Mine is due April 1st too. I am going to do 6 months and SORN it over winter. 700 quid for 3000 miles p.a. No way🥸

Thanks Mr Hunt for nothing. Pension increase 10.1% - No. The personal allowance fix means you can take 20% off the increased amount for tax on the private pension. Tax codes already changed for April 1st.

Bar stewards.

Thats all they are, I wonder how the UK compares to other countries for getting shafted.... I have just paid my VED, it came up to £630 for the year - before it goes up any more, my milage is about 6k per annum

[Bluemarlin]

My take on this, admittedly with limited knowledge, is that the issue isn't really ICE vs Electric, as it seems that Electric has always been technically better, and that it's about the fuel source. Oil is and has been readily available, but it's use is detrimental to the environment, whereas electricity, although having the potential to be cleaner, needs to be stored, and thus requires batteries. In turn those batteries require lithium, and there are questions about the cost, efficiency, safety and environmental impact of mining it.

I'm not sure how genuine the complaints about lithium are, and how much is due to people just trying to defend ICE/oil, as the latter doesn't have a wholesome history either with regards to environmental, social, or political exploitation. That said, there are genuine concerns about lithium mining that suggest it provides little to no environmental benefit when all factors are taken into account. Here's an article that outlines some of those concerns:

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/18/the-paradox-of-lithium/

On the flip side however, it seems that lithium mining isn't the only game in town, and it's suggested that direct lithium extraction might address many of the concerns about the environmental impact of obtaining lithium, as well as the costs and long term availability. Here's an outline of that:

https://www.ibatterymetals.com/insights/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-direct-lithium-extraction-process

I honestly don't know what the answer is. Logic tells me that electricity is by far the most flexible power source, as it can be generated in a variety of ways. Logic also tells me that its use for transport requires a sustainable, cost effective, environmentally acceptable means of storage.

A pessimist mght say that lithium will be never be able to provide that, whilst an optimist might feel that it will ultimately be possible to produce lithium without the negatve impacts of current mining methods. My gut feel is that with political emphasis being in this direction, industry will throw sufficient effort and investment to come up with alternative methods in order to meet those needs. I guess we'll see in time.

On a slight tangent, I read an article recently where a housebuilder claimed that, with renewable energy sources, they're not far off from building a house that could be run on £11 of energy a year. In the short term, renewable technology such as wind, solar etc, and the associated storage technologies, will assist countries in becoming energy independent, and less reliant upon importing fuels from potentially unstable suppliers. In the longer term, as these technologies are encouraged and invested in, they will continue to improve and costs will come down. If so, this may one day lead to not only countries being energy independent, but individuals too. I can't think of a greater freedom than being able to generate and store my own electricity. Granted that might require a political environment that favours the individual over big business and corporate interests, which may or may not occur but, what I do know is, that unless we invest in and develop those technologies, whatever the current motivations, it will never be a possibility.

[toffee_pie]

Electric generally better? Eh.. combustion engine cars have made up around 80/90 percent of automotive cars since the 1800s.

Lithium batteries have nasty chemicals, nickel, cobalt and many more than you don't really need to get involved with, hence the workers dying in Indonesia. A single electric car had around half a tonne of this stuff. I'm an Electronic Engineer, I worked and designed commercial products with lithium batteries, I have had dealings with Panasonic and LG (chem) and a host of Chinese Battery manufacturers and have visited the manufacturing plants themselves.

I find myself repeating myself quite a bit here it seems...

Ultimately it's folly to think that the automotive industry will be 100 electric cars in 30 years time with the same annual sales as what combustion engine cars were selling, there won't be sufficient natural resources to make them things 

[Mr Vlad]

Excellent post Bill. Yes you do feel you have to repeat yourself Eric. The Lithium production malarkey has sparked many an argument and discussion. Maybe thstsxwhy an alternative to Lithium for batteries is being developed by a few companies and that can't be a bad thing can it? No.

Furthering the element of what's wrong with EV's and them igniting in flames. One fire service is now using a bath to put the initially extinguished vehicle into this bath and give it a constant shower. So basically an EV that has caught fire is an utter write off and not a lot of it can be recycled. So from that EV's are not very ecological are they. At least a burnt out ICE car the metal can be recycled. 

[Bluemarlin]

4 hours ago, toffee_pie said:

Electric generally better? Eh.. combustion engine cars have made up around 80/90 percent of automotive cars since the 1800s.

Lithium batteries have nasty chemicals, nickel, cobalt and many more than you don't really need to get involved with, hence the workers dying in Indonesia. A single electric car had around half a tonne of this stuff. I'm an Electronic Engineer, I worked and designed commercial products with lithium batteries, I have had dealings with Panasonic and LG (chem) and a host of Chinese battery manufacturers and have visited the manufacturing plants themselves.

I find myself repeating myself quite a bit here it seems...

Ultimately it's folly to think that the automotive industry will be 100 electric cars in 30 years time with the same annual sales as what combustion engine cars were selling, there won't be sufficient natural resources to make them things 

I think you're missing my point Eric. Electric cars were developed in the 1800s too, in fact I believe the first Porsche was electric. Then, and now, it was considered that electric was superior in terms of power, efficiency and maintenance. ICE only became dominant because oil was readily available, whereas electric was impractical, due it's need for a Battery and the lack of sufficlent capability in that area.

So, I'm accepting your point that at present lithium batteries may have issues in comparison to oil burning, and only saying that, fuel source aside, electric is superior to ICE on a number of levels, and hence the issue is with the batteries and not the motors.

Yes, people die mining lithium, but then again around 100 people a year die on oil rigs, and many more are killed in wars and conflict over oil, so neither gets a clean bill of health when it comes to its extraction.

You may well also be right regarding the automotive industry not being fully electric in 30 years time, I honestly don't know.  I do understand though that many of the issues, including capacity/availablity, claim to be in part addressed by direct lithium extraction. Again, I guess it's something we'll have to wait and see.

I'm not sure where you get your figure of half a ton of lithium in a car Battery though. The Battery itself may well weigh that, but it's my understanding that the lithium content is somewhere between 10kg and 75kg per Battery.

All that said, I understand and accept the concerns of yourself and others but, perhaps optimistically, believe that with sufficient motivation they can be largely overcome. Whether that's through better lithium extraction methods, alternative Battery technology, or alternative fuel sources, such as hydrogen, it's too early to say.

I'd also add that, whilst I appreciate the passion for ICE cars, I can't help feel that relying on oil for so long, simply because it's readily available, has held us back from making progress in other areas. For a long time it's left us at the mercy of both corporate oil interests, as well as geopolitical factors. Whether moving away from it will ultimately be a good thing is impossible to tell, but searching for alternatives doesn't seem to be a bad thing either. Unfortunately though, to make that search worthwhile and effective, it requires an amount of forcing the issue. Like you, I'm not entirely comfortable with that, and can only hope that it opens the door to new technologies that we can all benefit from.

Ultimately I think we're all on the same side, in that we want clean, sustainable, cheap and readily availablle energy. We only differ in how we believe that's achievable, and so personally I no longer believe that oil is the best solution. As to what that eventually will be, I have no idea. However, we're an innovative species that has always risen to challenges, and sometimes the best ideas can come from adversity.

[Bluemarlin]

3 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Excellent post Bill. Yes you do feel you have to repeat yourself Eric. The Lithium production malarkey has sparked many an argument and discussion. Maybe thstsxwhy an alternative to Lithium for batteries is being developed by a few companies and that can't be a bad thing can it? No.

Furthering the element of what's wrong with EV's and them igniting in flames. One fire service is now using a bath to put the initially extinguished vehicle into this bath and give it a constant shower. So basically an EV that has caught fire is an utter write off and not a lot of it can be recycled. So from that EV's are not very ecological are they. At least a burnt out ICE car the metal can be recycled. 

Thanks Vladimir. I'm curious as what alternatives to lithium are being considered. I definitely think it would be a good thing if there were better alternatives for making batteries. To my mind batteries/energy storage are the key to everthing, and so if someone can crack that then it opens the door to a host of possibilities that go far beyond just powering cars.

The issue of EVs going up in flames is also a concern, but if I'm honest I don't know enough about it, nor how much more likely they are to combust over an ICE car. It's true that it's not especially ecological, but the mathematics of how that balances against ICE fires, oil spills, lithium extraction penalties, as well as a host of other comparable factors, is at a level of complexity beyond the capabilities of me and my solar powered calculator 🙂

[toffee_pie]

23 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I think you're missing my point Eric. Electric cars were developed in the 1800s too, in fact I believe the first Porsche was electric. Then, and now, it was considered that electric was superior in terms of power, efficiency and maintenance. ICE only became dominant because oil was readily available, whereas electric was impractical, due it's need for a battery and the lack of sufficlent capability in that area.

So, I'm accepting your point that at present lithium batteries may have issues in comparison to oil burning, and only saying that, fuel source aside, electric is superior to ICE on a number of levels, and hence the issue is with the batteries and not the motors.

Yes, people die mining lithium, but then again around 100 people a year die on oil rigs, and many more are killed in wars and conflict over oil, so neither gets a clean bill of health when it comes to its extraction.

You may well also be right regarding the automotive industry not being fully electric in 30 years time, I honestly don't know.  I do understand though that many of the issues, including capacity/availablity, claim to be in part addressed by direct lithium extraction. Again, I guess it's something we'll have to wait and see.

I'm not sure where you get your figure of half a ton of lithium in a car battery though. The battery itself may well weigh that, but it's my understanding that the lithium content is somewhere between 10kg and 75kg per battery.

All that said, I understand and accept the concerns of yourself and others but, perhaps optimistically, believe that with sufficient motivation they can be largely overcome. Whether that's through better lithium extraction methods, alternative battery technology, or alternative fuel sources, such as hydrogen, it's too early to say.

I'd also add that, whilst I appreciate the passion for ICE cars, I can't help feel that relying on oil for so long, simply because it's readily available, has held us back from making progress in other areas. For a long time it's left us at the mercy of both corporate oil interests, as well as geopolitical factors. Whether moving away from it will ultimately be a good thing is impossible to tell, but searching for alternatives doesn't seem to be a bad thing either. Unfortunately though, to make that search worthwhile and effective, it requires an amount of forcing the issue. Like you, I'm not entirely comfortable with that, and can only hope that it opens the door to new technologies that we can all benefit from.

Ultimately I think we're all on the same side, in that we want clean, sustainable, cheap and readily availablle energy. We only differ in how we believe that's achievable, and so personally I no longer believe that oil is the best solution. As to what that eventually will be, I have no idea. However, we're an innovative species that has always risen to challenges, and sometimes the best ideas can come from adversity.

Missing the point - dont think so 

4 hours ago, toffee_pie said:

Electric generally better? Eh.. combustion engine cars have made up around 80/90 percent of automotive cars since the 1800s.

What is going on since around covid - sorry but you do need to mention it, its been a trigger point for everything - resetting your brain to accept everything you are told as the new normal - its clear dastardly things are going on and we seem to have a divided society - on one side we have folks who think everything is fine or the reasons for everything happpening is just and acceptable and on the other half we have folks wondering what is going on.

All the high street shops, banks, post offices, and so forth closing are blaming covid, the recession, the war, climate change -- they wont be needed as according to the UN summit goals the world in 2030 will be a digital world- EVs are part of the scheme - I dont see them as Electric and moreso Digital.

When Airports gradually close between now and 2035 they too will blame the recession, the war, climate change... you see where I am going here - what will be left is superhubs that the elite can frequent who are exempt from the draconian measures taking hold of the world. 

[Mr Vlad]

Blimey Eric you ain't arf painting a recession type picture. Doom and gloom. I'm seeing you as a Mr Angry character. Passionate yes to beyond that and ki d of blinkered as you read a post but pick at it the parts you kind of twist. Its a shame because of your professional insight to batteries is very welcome. 

[toffee_pie]

22 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Blimey Eric you ain't arf painting a recession type picture. Doom and gloom. I'm seeing you as a Mr Angry character. Passionate yes to beyond that and ki d of blinkered as you read a post but pick at it the parts you kind of twist. Its a shame because of your professional insight to batteries is very welcome. 

Sorry man but it's clear that there's underlying skulduggery going on for years, this is more...

Thousands of British jobs at risk after Switzerland's largest bank UBS agrees to buy troubled rival Credit Suisse for $2bn: Swiss banks employ 11,000 staff in London with heavy cuts now feared.

Everything orchestrated - it's not like govs are telling you anything that your not supposed to know.

The only thing I'm angry with is how easily everything is getting done, pretty much the same way govs can ban combustion engine cars in a two minute speech.

 

[Malc1]

16 hours ago, toffee_pie said:

how easily everything is getting done, pretty much the same way govs can ban combustion engine cars

which from the " other " posts on here many of the EU ( and UK ? ) Govts have now unwound that ban in 2035 ....... well, until the next time !

Don't worry, one will still be able to recharge one's EV somewhere .........  probably the same place one can get LPG and the new Hydrogen Power fill-up

Malc

[toffee_pie]

3 hours ago, Malc1 said:

which from the " other " posts on here many of the EU ( and UK ? ) Govts have now unwound that ban in 2035 ....... well, until the next time !

Don't worry, one will still be able to recharge one's EV somewhere .........  probably the same place one can get LPG and the new Hydrogen Power fill-up

Malc

The net zero narrative is all trash - it all boils down to corruption - if combustion engine cars were as bad as they are made out to be and considering they are out since the 1800s you would expect people to be dropping off like flies - but no, the population of the world is going out of control.  

Peoples freedom is getting taken away by this net zero drivel, likewise forced to get electric cars they cant afford and restricting their movement

Have a look at this - Bill Gates, a Philanthropist or a crook? you decide....!

Politicians work for the government, but in actual fact they can work for anyone if they are paid enough - its not like they are clocking in and out under the watchful eye of a manager or have their comms and internet activity throttled

https://thelibertyforum.org/posts/intelligence-for-the-people-the-philanthropists-playbook

 

[Bluemarlin]

On 3/19/2023 at 6:58 PM, toffee_pie said:

Missing the point - dont think so 

What is going on since around covid - sorry but you do need to mention it, its been a trigger point for everything - resetting your brain to accept everything you are told as the new normal - its clear dastardly things are going on and we seem to have a divided society - on one side we have folks who think everything is fine or the reasons for everything happpening is just and acceptable and on the other half we have folks wondering what is going on.

All the high street shops, banks, post offices, and so forth closing are blaming covid, the recession, the war, climate change -- they wont be needed as according to the UN summit goals the world in 2030 will be a digital world- EVs are part of the scheme - I dont see them as Electric and moreso Digital.

When Airports gradually close between now and 2035 they too will blame the recession, the war, climate change... you see where I am going here - what will be left is superhubs that the elite can frequent who are exempt from the draconian measures taking hold of the world. 

Good heavens Eric, you do like to present a moving target, don't you. One minute you're supporting ICE because you claim it to be superior technology (just because it's been around since the 1800s), and the next you seem to say that's not really your point, and it's more that you see electric as digital, and therefore part of a nefarious scheme to control us.

Whether that's true or not, I can't see how they coudn't do that just as easilly with ICE vehicles. The location, control and monitoring electronics, that are being fitted to cars, work just as well in a petrol driven car as they do in an electrically powered one. In fact it would be far easier to just do that than have to create and push through legislation for electric cars. Additionally, why bother with a once removed device, like a car, when everyone (even children) has a mobile phone that can be monitored and controlled. It makes no sense.

It sounds to me that your beliefs are the same as those always claimed whenever there's new technology. Here's how one might imagine an Eric of the 1800s:

"This new technology of the internal combustion engine is just a scheme to exploit the ordinary people. Already we see the removal of the horse and cart as a cheap means of transport, as we're forced to buy more expensive cars, and run them on expensive petrol. It's a plot against the poor. The claims about horse manure polluting our cities are just a scam to rid us from the transport freedom of horses, as these new fossil fuels are just as polluting, but they're hiding that from us. Cars can be used to monitor and control us, as we're forced to fill up at dedicated stations, instead of just feeding a horse some hay.

We're told that that these new fossil fuels will revolutionise industry and create factories that are able to mass produce goods that we couldn't previously afford, but the reality is that we'll see the disappearance of individual tradesmen, and workers will no longer be valued for their skills and only their labour. Already we're seeing farriers and blacksmiths disappear from the high street.

And what's going on since Smallpox? Sorry, but you do need to mention it, it's been a trigger point for everything. Vaccination and quarantine is just a covert measure of government control, to get us to accept the new normal. Just you wait, I bet they'll start a couple of world wars soon, to help promote their agenda."

You see Eric, I can take fossil fuels, tie them to Smallpox, the industrial revolution, WW1 & 2, and paint just as grim a picture about them as you do about electricity and renewable energy. I'm sure one could go back further and do the same for the agricultural revolution. In truth, these shifts did have downsides, as we adjusted to them, but they also brought huge benefits. Despite any fears of government control, the introduction of new technologies has continued to give people greater access to information, goods, services, healthcare and transport, that have given ordinary people freedoms and a voice that they could never have imagined possible a 100 years ago. Sure, to some degree we're still puppets, but one can just as easily argue that over time the strings are being cut, rather than added to.

So, whilst I'm with you when it comes to having doubts and questions about the technological, financial, and even environmental benefits of some of the new ideas being proposed, you lose me when you appear to be using them as litle more than a trojan horse, to introduce claims of it all being some kind of global conspiracy to control us.

Power to the people 🙂

[Mr Vlad]

Another excellent post Bill. Sorry I had to laugh out loud with the last line. It brought back a TV programme I, and possibly you, watched some decades ago.

Citizen Smith: Power To The People 🤘

[LenT]

 

18 hours ago, toffee_pie said:

Have a look at this - Bill Gates, a Philanthropist or a crook? you decide....!

I presumed that the article by ‘Paul’ at ‘Critical Sway’ that you offered as evidence would provide the answer to this vexing question. Having read it, my conclusion is…..

Philanthropist.

So let’s have a look at that article. Before ‘Paul’ even discusses Gates he proceeds by describing the actions of Al Capone, who actually committed acts of both philanthropy and criminality. He introduces his Gates’ item by writing:

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol, Noto Color Emoji">'Men and women, guilty of varying degrees of overt criminality, have long understood the value of the philanthropist’s playbook.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol, Noto Color Emoji">Let’s take a look at a modern-day philanthropist - William Henry Gates III.'

This is known as ‘Guilt by Association’.

However, in the 1600 or so words that follow, he does not include ‘crook’, ‘illegal’, ‘criminal’, ‘criminality’ or even their synonyms. He even fails to provide any examples of ‘overt criminality’.  In fact, 'Paul' makes no allegation of criminal behaviour by Gates of any kind.

At one point he states: ‘apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol, Noto Color Emoji">I'm not begrudging another man's financial success. ‘

And yet that’s clearly what he is doing! In simple terms, it seems that the fact that Gates is continuing to make money overrides the reality that he is also giving much of it away.

But there’s nothing illegal about that.

What seems to inflame ‘Paul’ is that Gates is being given credit for his acts of philanthropy but not getting any poorer! In fact, many would say that it is the making of more money that provides the opportunity to indulge in philanthropy.

After all, if charities were forced to rely only on what the likes of ‘Paul’ could donate, I suspect they would be facing very lean times indeed.

Let’s take an example with which you might be more familiar. You have on occasions cited The Guardian as a source. So presumably you regard it as reliable, authoritative and independent.

And yet – as I have observed before – The Guardian freely acknowledges and enthusiastically welcomes the decade-long financial support that it has received from Bill Gates.

So….is The Guardian the complicit recipient of a crook’s largess, or the grateful beneficiary of a generous philanthropist?

You decide.

[toffee_pie]

TfL to slap 20mph limit on 65km more of London roads in September

TfL is planning to introduce 65km of new 20mph speed limits in September within the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Lewisham, Southwark, Wandsworth, Merton, Bromley and Lambeth...

This forms an important part of the Mayor’s Vision Zero plan and we will continue to work with colleagues in boroughs to keep improving the safety of London’s roads

Skulduggery of the highest quality this.

It's gone way past net zero now. 

How better to get control of people than convince them that the planet is crashing and burning,  Govs are using net zero it seems to create carbon credits, basically tax on your wealth and have more control of people - it's only a matter of time before cbdc takes over, that too is a knock on effect from net zero as are Electric cars and all this ULEZ,LTN nonsense.

If traffic was this bad you would imagine Mumbai to be empty as everyone would surely be stone dead from the traffic 

 

[toffee_pie]

6 hours ago, LenT said:

 

I presumed that the article by ‘Paul’ at ‘Critical Sway’ that you offered as evidence would provide the answer to this vexing question. Having read it, my conclusion is…..

Philanthropist.

So let’s have a look at that article. Before ‘Paul’ even discusses Gates he proceeds by describing the actions of Al Capone, who actually committed acts of both philanthropy and criminality. He introduces his Gates’ item by writing:

'Men and women, guilty of varying degrees of overt criminality, have long understood the value of the philanthropist’s playbook.

Let’s take a look at a modern-day philanthropist - William Henry Gates III.'

This is known as ‘Guilt by Association’.

However, in the 1600 or so words that follow, he does not include ‘crook’, ‘illegal’, ‘criminal’, ‘criminality’ or even their synonyms. He even fails to provide any examples of ‘overt criminality’.  In fact, 'Paul' makes no allegation of criminal behaviour by Gates of any kind.

At one point he states: ‘I'm not begrudging another man's financial success. ‘

And yet that’s clearly what he is doing! In simple terms, it seems that the fact that Gates is continuing to make money overrides the reality that he is also giving much of it away.

But there’s nothing illegal about that.

What seems to inflame ‘Paul’ is that Gates is being given credit for his acts of philanthropy but not getting any poorer! In fact, many would say that it is the making of more money that provides the opportunity to indulge in philanthropy.

After all, if charities were forced to rely only on what the likes of ‘Paul’ could donate, I suspect they would be facing very lean times indeed.

Let’s take an example with which you might be more familiar. You have on occasions cited The Guardian as a source. So presumably you regard it as reliable, authoritative and independent.

And yet – as I have observed before – The Guardian freely acknowledges and enthusiastically welcomes the decade-long financial support that it has received from Bill Gates.

So….is The Guardian the complicit recipient of a crook’s largess, or the grateful beneficiary of a generous philanthropist?

You decide.

Anything that guy said isn't strictly wrong, if you are as wealthy as Bill Gates you will have the means to disguise any illegal activities with ease and get away with it because we all know politicians love back handed agreements, judge's too for that matter. 5 million dollars to Bill is a few rounds of beers 

Anyone who thinks everything happening since 2019 is normal really is blinkered and clearly just playing along with whatever they are asked to do.

[toffee_pie]

8 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

Good heavens Eric, you do like to present a moving target, don't you. One minute you're supporting ICE because you claim it to be superior technology (just because it's been around since the 1800s), and the next you seem to say that's not really your point, and it's more that you see electric as digital, and therefore part of a nefarious scheme to control us.

Whether that's true or not, I can't see how they coudn't do that just as easilly with ICE vehicles. The location, control and monitoring electronics, that are being fitted to cars, work just as well in a petrol driven car as they do in an electrically powered one. In fact it would be far easier to just do that than have to create and push through legislation for electric cars. Additionally, why bother with a once removed device, like a car, when everyone (even children) has a mobile phone that can be monitored and controlled. It makes no sense.

It sounds to me that your beliefs are the same as those always claimed whenever there's new technology. Here's how one might imagine an Eric of the 1800s:

"This new technology of the internal combustion engine is just a scheme to exploit the ordinary people. Already we see the removal of the horse and cart as a cheap means of transport, as we're forced to buy more expensive cars, and run them on expensive petrol. It's a plot against the poor. The claims about horse manure polluting our cities are just a scam to rid us from the transport freedom of horses, as these new fossil fuels are just as polluting, but they're hiding that from us. Cars can be used to monitor and control us, as we're forced to fill up at dedicated stations, instead of just feeding a horse some hay.

We're told that that these new fossil fuels will revolutionise industry and create factories that are able to mass produce goods that we couldn't previously afford, but the reality is that we'll see the disappearance of individual tradesmen, and workers will no longer be valued for their skills and only their labour. Already we're seeing farriers and blacksmiths disappear from the high street.

And what's going on since Smallpox? Sorry, but you do need to mention it, it's been a trigger point for everything. Vaccination and quarantine is just a covert measure of government control, to get us to accept the new normal. Just you wait, I bet they'll start a couple of world wars soon, to help promote their agenda."

You see Eric, I can take fossil fuels, tie them to Smallpox, the industrial revolution, WW1 & 2, and paint just as grim a picture about them as you do about electricity and renewable energy. I'm sure one could go back further and do the same for the agricultural revolution. In truth, these shifts did have downsides, as we adjusted to them, but they also brought huge benefits. Despite any fears of government control, the introduction of new technologies has continued to give people greater access to information, goods, services, healthcare and transport, that have given ordinary people freedoms and a voice that they could never have imagined possible a 100 years ago. Sure, to some degree we're still puppets, but one can just as easily argue that over time the strings are being cut, rather than added to.

So, whilst I'm with you when it comes to having doubts and questions about the technological, financial, and even environmental benefits of some of the new ideas being proposed, you lose me when you appear to be using them as litle more than a trojan horse, to introduce claims of it all being some kind of global conspiracy to control us.

Power to the people 🙂

If you read my previous post on here, you will see that I said I see nothing wrong with electric cars in an urban setting - let people decide if they want to buy them. But that's not what is happening is it , everyone has to buy them.. which makes no sense whatsoever, plus add all the climate nonsense..

Let me copy and paste again in case you missed.

TfL is planning to introduce 65km of new 20mph speed limits in September within the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Lewisham, Southwark, Wandsworth, Merton, Bromley and Lambeth...

This forms an important part of the Mayor’s Vision Zero plan and we will continue to work with colleagues in boroughs to keep improving the safety of London’s roads.

This isn't about the climate anymore, it's removing the democratic society of which we used to live in.

I'm trying to figure out the mindset of folks who think nothing untoward is going on

[toffee_pie]

On 3/18/2023 at 7:40 PM, dutchie01 said:

Well, i never said that batteries used to propel cars are good for the planet and by the way a 75kwh batterypack contains some 8kg lithium.

All i wanted to say is that whatever means of transport we choose it does not help the enironment, seems logic?

And saying that dirty oil has been around since 1800 and we seem to be doing fine? really?

 

You don't seem to grasp how bad they are for the planet, lithium batteries and you don't seem to grasp that a single electric car has around half a tonne of them under the seats, larger EVs even more. How on earth do you really think that they are doing great things for the environment.

Going back to oil and blaming that is just rubbish, see my link previously, automotive industry isn't responsible for not nearly as much damage to greenhouse gases as trust the science are making out

Have a read of this too.

Problem with you folks is that anyone who dares query this stuff is a conspiracy theorist, where is the evidence, are you out of your mind, what science did you study.. yadda yadda.

That is what money does.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/20/green-revolution-fuelling-environmental-destruction/?WT.mc_id=e_DM97043&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Loy_Dig_Acq_Tue_4Dto7D&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Loy_Dig_Acq_Tue_4Dto7D20230124&utm_campaign=DM97043

 

 

[dutchie01]

Toffee, It just does not matter what arguments are brought up your answer always seems thesame, a rant about the batteries followed by full blown conspiracy theories. In this way a balanced discussion about the topic is just not possible so i am out.

[toffee_pie]

4 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

Toffee, It just does not matter what arguments are brought up your answer always seems thesame, a rant about the batteries followed by full blown conspiracy theories. In this way a balanced discussion about the topic is just not possible so i am out.

Everything is a conspiracy isn't it .. 

Maybe trust the science are developing green batteries that grow on trees, then councils might not chop them down at night fall.