Food for thought - Climate Change

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

Rishi takes axe to Tory green plans warning current 2030 target would cost families £15,000: PM delays ban on gas boilers and petrol and diesel cars, scraps plans for seven bins per home and says there will be no extra tax on flights or meat

Hard to believe they have taken these steps. Could this possibly be a start to something new where common sense finally prevails over blind ideology.

I would like to focus here on what was response from all the car makers... they all started crying! Just think about it - what does it tell use? Car makers disappointed that people will not be thrown out of their cars and FORCED to buy shaity BEVs. If anything that proves for me BEVs are scam and captive market to sell cars for guaranteed profit. Because all the ULEZ etc just prematurely makes perfectly decent cars worthless and forces upgrade. So this Climate scam works very well for manufacturers.  

As for why he did it - the reality is that ecomentalists are tiny minority, that they glue themselves to the road does not mean many people support them. So very simple answer here - people in power felt like there may be brewing grassroots support to reverse this nonsense, BUT I would not keep my hopes too high, for them it is political game, they virtue signal a little bit, kick it down the road to for couple of years to get some votes, but they are not genuinely interested in making it right. So that is just cheap-shot at average family saying "vote for me, AMA GOOOOD BOY, save ya £15,000". As well it is genuine threat for Labour, as they (damn fools) by trying to best the Tories in their stupid game have outsmarted themselves and are boasting about even harsher restrictions, Khan's plan didn't go very well in London, another useful idiot in Wales is screwing-up, and now it was just perfect opportunity to backstab Labour with their own policy when it seems it is becoming unpopular, despite Tories actually promoting that police for last 10 years. "yeah vote for us - you don't want to vote for those damn socialist who will take your cars away and make you each pay £15,000 more for everything".

When they thought there may be climate votes to be picked-up by being thought on pollution and climate change they done that, now when they think some votes could be gain for letting the loop around the neck slip a little bit they will do that. Politicians will be politicians - you can't trust them more than you can throw them (I know I have stolen this saying from somebody). 

As well this is very similar with the vote of brexshaite... they keep blaming all the issues on climate change... bushes burn - climate change, streets floods - climate change, air quality is bad - climate change... then people reasonably say "so if everything is climate change then why don't you do something about it?!".. and then they capitalise on issue they created from nowhere. How about tidying-up and cutting down the bush, so that small spark does not cause the large spreading fire, it is not climate that is causing fire, but rather overgrown everything? how about planning city better and building sufficient drainage, or maintaining the drains - it is not torrential rain that is causing floods, just poor planning and poor maintenance of the drains. And same for air quality - if you have stand still traffic for 16 our of 24 hours per day, then sure there will be accumulation of exhaust gasses, if the road would be properly upgraded to address the need and free flowing there would not be as much of an issue. But our politicians always blames somebody... it is never their fault, it is never corruption, inefficiency, wasting money and not delivering what is needed - no no no... it is always Brussel, Climate Change or somebody else's fault.

So despite loving the change in tone I still recognise that it is liars who are saying it and I am not trusting them on making it right. But it is slight step in right direction.

[wharfhouse]

8 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I would like to focus here on what was response from all the car makers... they all started crying! Just think about it - what does it tell use? Car makers disappointed that people will not be thrown out of their cars and FORCED to buy shaity BEVs. If anything that proves for me BEVs are scam and captive market to sell cars for guaranteed profit. Because all the ULEZ etc just prematurely makes perfectly decent cars worthless and forces upgrade. So this Climate scam works very well for manufacturers.  

As for why he did it - the reality is that ecomentalists are tiny minority, that they glue themselves to the road does not mean many people support them. So very simple answer here - people in power felt like there may be brewing grassroots support to reverse this nonsense, BUT I would not keep my hopes too high, for them it is political game, they virtue signal a little bit, kick it down the road to for couple of years to get some votes, but they are not genuinely interested in making it right. So that is just cheap-shot at average family saying "vote for me, AMA GOOOOD BOY, save ya £15,000". As well it is genuine threat for Labour, as they (damn fools) by trying to best the Tories in their stupid game have outsmarted themselves and are boasting about even harsher restrictions, Khan's plan didn't go very well in London, another useful idiot in Wales is screwing-up, and now it was just perfect opportunity to backstab Labour with their own policy when it seems it is becoming unpopular, despite Tories actually promoting that police for last 10 years. "yeah vote for us - you don't want to vote for those damn socialist who will take your cars away and make you each pay £15,000 more for everything".

When they thought there may be climate votes to be picked-up by being thought on pollution and climate change they done that, now when they think some votes could be gain for letting the loop around the neck slip a little bit they will do that. Politicians will be politicians - you can't trust them more than you can throw them (I know I have stolen this saying from somebody). 

As well this is very similar with the vote of brexshaite... they keep blaming all the issues on climate change... bushes burn - climate change, streets floods - climate change, air quality is bad - climate change... then people reasonably say "so if everything is climate change then why don't you do something about it?!".. and then they capitalise on issue they created from nowhere. How about tidying-up and cutting down the bush, so that small spark does not cause the large spreading fire, it is not climate that is causing fire, but rather overgrown everything? how about planning city better and building sufficient drainage, or maintaining the drains - it is not torrential rain that is causing floods, just poor planning and poor maintenance of the drains. And same for air quality - if you have stand still traffic for 16 our of 24 hours per day, then sure there will be accumulation of exhaust gasses, if the road would be properly upgraded to address the need and free flowing there would not be as much of an issue. But our politicians always blames somebody... it is never their fault, it is never corruption, inefficiency, wasting money and not delivering what is needed - no no no... it is always Brussel, Climate Change or somebody else's fault.

So despite loving the change in tone I still recognise that it is liars who are saying it and I am not trusting them on making it right. But it is slight step in right direction.

Some car makers (like Ford) are annoyed but others (including Toyota) said they are in favour of the change as it aligned with the EU and other countries whilst the remainder said it will make no difference to their plans of when that will launch EV models. 

[Malc1]

There’s a danger of an “ us and them” society developing I fear. The haves and have nots. Those with too much money and being able to readily afford a brand new EV and those poorer having to make do with a secondhand older ICE vehicle 

Well I for one am happy to be in the poorer have nots group   Last time I bought a brand new car was in 1969 and what I see of “ improvements” in car technology place me firmly in the never wishing to be in the “ haves “ with the exorbitant maintenance costs of newer “ better “ ( wot a joke ) technology 

Something about lots of our older more sensible cars just being exported to pastures new ( parts of Africa ) where they have a fresh simpler life doing good for their societies ….. at our expense ……. the pollution doesn’t vanish, it just moves to another part of the globe where the winds and storms just might bring it all back to us anyway 

Politics or nay, we’re being screwed over financially whatever we do or think we should be doing …… in the name of Climate Change remedies 

Wonder where we’ll be in 10 years time with suggested Scrappage Schemes for EVs ? 

Malc 

[Boomer54]

7 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I would like to focus here on what was response from all the car makers... they all started crying! Just think about it - what does it tell use? Car makers disappointed that people will not be thrown out of their cars and FORCED to buy shaity BEVs. If anything that proves for me BEVs are scam and captive market to sell cars for guaranteed profit. Because all the ULEZ etc just prematurely makes perfectly decent cars worthless and forces upgrade. So this Climate scam works very well for manufacturers.  

As for why he did it - the reality is that ecomentalists are tiny minority, that they glue themselves to the road does not mean many people support them. So very simple answer here - people in power felt like there may be brewing grassroots support to reverse this nonsense, BUT I would not keep my hopes too high, for them it is political game, they virtue signal a little bit, kick it down the road to for couple of years to get some votes, but they are not genuinely interested in making it right. So that is just cheap-shot at average family saying "vote for me, AMA GOOOOD BOY, save ya £15,000". As well it is genuine threat for Labour, as they (damn fools) by trying to best the Tories in their stupid game have outsmarted themselves and are boasting about even harsher restrictions, Khan's plan didn't go very well in London, another useful idiot in Wales is screwing-up, and now it was just perfect opportunity to backstab Labour with their own policy when it seems it is becoming unpopular, despite Tories actually promoting that police for last 10 years. "yeah vote for us - you don't want to vote for those damn socialist who will take your cars away and make you each pay £15,000 more for everything".

When they thought there may be climate votes to be picked-up by being thought on pollution and climate change they done that, now when they think some votes could be gain for letting the loop around the neck slip a little bit they will do that. Politicians will be politicians - you can't trust them more than you can throw them (I know I have stolen this saying from somebody). 

As well this is very similar with the vote of brexshaite... they keep blaming all the issues on climate change... bushes burn - climate change, streets floods - climate change, air quality is bad - climate change... then people reasonably say "so if everything is climate change then why don't you do something about it?!".. and then they capitalise on issue they created from nowhere. How about tidying-up and cutting down the bush, so that small spark does not cause the large spreading fire, it is not climate that is causing fire, but rather overgrown everything? how about planning city better and building sufficient drainage, or maintaining the drains - it is not torrential rain that is causing floods, just poor planning and poor maintenance of the drains. And same for air quality - if you have stand still traffic for 16 our of 24 hours per day, then sure there will be accumulation of exhaust gasses, if the road would be properly upgraded to address the need and free flowing there would not be as much of an issue. But our politicians always blames somebody... it is never their fault, it is never corruption, inefficiency, wasting money and not delivering what is needed - no no no... it is always Brussel, Climate Change or somebody else's fault.

So despite loving the change in tone I still recognise that it is liars who are saying it and I am not trusting them on making it right. But it is slight step in right direction.

Well it wasn't 'all' the car makers was it ? The response from the sector was more or less aligned with where they were with their plans for transitioning from fossil to EV. If like Ford you were already all in on 2030 you could see how damaging this was to your investment planning and of course you would bleat like a sheep heading for the slaughter house.

On aside ,but still associated with the issue of govt policy. I note the headline in the Times where 'support for big government is at an all time high'. I guess we should not therefore be surprised at the ongoing trend for govt to increasingly intrude on what some of us consider to be decisions of personal choice. Of course this does not simply refer to the govt in power . It also aims straight at more local govt bodies, councils etc.

I wonder what came first ? Did Govt start taking over with more policy because they could see more voters wanted it? Alternatively, did more people want it ,because they thought Govt were getting better at making decisions than they were as individuals? I really don't know , but i can certainly see how divisive this is going to be.

 

[Phil xxkr]

12 hours ago, Malc1 said:

I’ve heard that they have all settled and agreed …. Over one million of em so there’s no gripe with that faction at all 

overworked and probably not paid enough BUT there’s no sodding money tree  eh ! 
 

They all, I agree, work their butts off …. All 1.25mln NHS employees do so 

Nope it’s simply the Drs and the Consultants who think they’re totally underpaid and need support from all us other taxpayers that are clearly earning far more than them …… I don’t envy them at all, nor their pittance of salaries ….. jeez how can they possibly make ends meet one wonders 

I have a nephew Heart Consultant and believe me his family have an amazing quality of life ……. he’s certainly making ends meet ok …… big house, kids, new cars , holidays whatever and he thoroughly deserves all he grafts for …… and I don’t doubt for one minute that he’s grimacing at this Greed amongst his Fellows 

Nope, I’ll be thinking to somehow shame them, the Strikers that is, where I can ! 

Enough is Enough ….. Shame them for their Greed I say 

Malc 

"They all, I agree, work their butts off …. All 1.25mln NHS employees do so"

Really Malc? But then I remembered last year NHS employees took 27,000,000, (twenty seven million), days off citing sickness 😱. 

No wonder they work hard making up for the ones not being there. If on average people work 230 days a year I shall leave you to work out the obvious 🤯

[Malc1]

35 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

days off citing sickness 😱. 

it does seem a very challenging job working whatever in the NHS to each having such huge sick leave  ...  wonder if they had a problem getting a Drs Appt too 🤔

Malc

[Bluemarlin]

21 hours ago, Linas.P said:

You made a lot of other good points which I would like to address, but I think our posts are becoming too long to read (I am very much at fault here)... so how about addressing them one by one. 

You said - 

That is good argument, but the point is - we trying to prevent the climate CHANGE which could be a catalyst for innovation.

Basically we trying to force unnecessary invocation, to prevent change, to prevent ourselves from innovating... 

It could be argued this is "preventative" innovation, okey... but then we need to recognise the alternative, we can burn all the fossil fuel until it inevitably runs out, benefit as much as we can from affordable energy, develop our society as much as we can and then be forced to innovate the alternative fuel type, when we actually need it. 

So alternative view is that we prematurely limiting ourselves and not using opportunity cost we have... perhaps we can instead colonise other planets around us whilst we can instead of wasting time and resources preventing inevitable climate change? This is just opportunity cost in the end of the day. I am not saying slowing down climate change is necessary bad and colonising other planets is necessary good, they are just different alternatives. However, ecomentalists wants us to believe that there is no alternative but to prevent climate change (despite it being inevitable with our current technological limitations).

So I am just suggesting open-minded discussion, do we really have to do anything with climate, or maybe we can do something else? 

Ok, interesting discussion, which is more easily undertaken when debating the pros and cons of addressing climate change, regardless of how one feels about its urgency or necessity.

To start, I would like to say that many don't feel that action against climate change is unnecessary, so that's not a given. Regardless of whether the climate will change due to natural occurence, with or without our contribution or intervention, is a matter of timing. If we are accelerating that process, at a speed at which we can't economically adapt, then it makes sense to take action to prevent that. So, we're not trying to prevent inevitable climate change, we're trying to prevent our contribution to it, which is having affects at a rate of which we can't effectively and economically adapt to. That's what some believe, although I accept you don't. Again, we can both put forth theories to support either belief, so best to just accept that we differ on that point.

Yes, we could burn all the fossil fuel till it runs out, and then look at the alternatives, but let's also look at the downsides of that. Whilst currently abundant, it's no longer the case that fossils fuels are a relatively cheap form of energy. On the one hand the prices are kept artfcially high by the cartels and corporations that control the supply, and on the other hand we're at the mercy of things like war and political whim as to the reliability of that supply. We've seen that most clearly over the last year or so, with domestic energy bills tripling, and petrol prices still artificially high. As I said previously, one of the biggest selling points of shifting from fossil fuels, for me anyway, is not the perceived climate benefits, but the opportunties for energy independence.

In addition to cost, those who claim exploitation of people in order to mine the natural resources for batteries, seem blind to the corruption, conflict and death that is an integral part of the oil industry. Parts of Africa are kept in perpetual conflict to facilitate the supply of oil, and the same can be said of the Middle East. You may or may not care about these things, but they're hardly a selling point.

My alternative view to yours, is that we have been artificially limited by an oil industry that has for many years resisted, if not obstructed, the development of alternative technologies, not because oil is more affordable, but because it's profitable for them to do so.

Nor are your alternatives mutually exclusive. Suppose we did want to colonise other planets; how much would that cost purely in fossil fuels to travel there? How much is propulsion technology retricted by the need to carry and burn fossil fuels? What about providing energy on planets that don't have fossil fuel reserves? Advancements in wind, solar and other means of electricity production might not only provide more efficient means of travel, but also renewable forms of energy once there.

So, what I'm saying is that, even without the climate issue, carrying on with fossil fuels is what is stifling innovation, simply because it requires nothing to change. The climate argument, regardless of its veracity, is the one single thing that is motivating people to do things differently, which is how innovation takes place.

Sure, we could kick the can down the road, but the impact of doing that depends on how you feel about the potential negative affects on climate. Whatever one's belief on that though, it seems it would also be kicking any innovation down the road.

That's just my view though.

[Linas.P]

22 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

Ok, interesting discussion, which is more easily undertaken when debating the pros and cons of addressing climate change, regardless of how one feels about its urgency or necessity.

To start, I would like to say that many don't feel that action against climate change is unnecessary, so that's not a given. Regardless of whether the climate will change due to natural occurence, with or without our contribution or intervention, is a matter of timing. If we are accelerating that process, at a speed at which we can't economically adapt, then it makes sense to take action to prevent that. So, we're not trying to prevent inevitable climate change, we're trying to prevent our contribution to it, which is having affects at a rate of which we can't effectively and economically adapt to. That's what some believe, although I accept you don't. Again, we can both put forth theories to support either belief, so best to just accept that we differ on that point.

Yes, we could burn all the fossil fuel till it runs out, and then look at the alternatives, but let's also look at the downsides of that. Whilst currently abundant, it's no longer the case that fossils fuels are a relatively cheap form of energy. On the one hand the prices are kept artfcially high by the cartels and corporations that control the supply, and on the other hand we're at the mercy of things like war and political whim as to the reliability of that supply. We've seen that most clearly over the last year or so, with domestic energy bills tripling, and petrol prices still artificially high. As I said previously, one of the biggest selling points of shifting from fossil fuels, for me anyway, is not the perceived climate benefits, but the opportunties for energy independence.

In addition to cost, those who claim exploitation of people in order to mine the natural resources for batteries, seem blind to the corruption, conflict and death that is an integral part of the oil industry. Parts of Africa are kept in perpetual conflict to facilitate the supply of oil, and the same can be said of the Middle East. You may or may not care about these things, but they're hardly a selling point.

My alternative view to yours, is that we have been artificially limited by an oil industry that has for many years resisted, if not obstructed, the development of alternative technologies, not because oil is more affordable, but because it's profitable for them to do so.

Nor are your alternatives mutually exclusive. Suppose we did want to colonise other planets; how much would that cost purely in fossil fuels to travel there? How much is propulsion technology retricted by the need to carry and burn fossil fuels? What about providing energy on planets that don't have fossil fuel reserves? Advancements in wind, solar and other means of electricity production might not only provide more efficient means of travel, but also renewable forms of energy once there.

So, what I'm saying is that, even without the climate issue, carrying on with fossil fuels is what is stifling innovation, simply because it requires nothing to change. The climate argument, regardless of its veracity, is the one single thing that is motivating people to do things differently, which is how innovation takes place.

Sure, we could kick the can down the road, but the impact of doing that depends on how you feel about the potential negative affects on climate. Whatever one's belief on that though, it seems it would also be kicking any innovation down the road.

That's just my view though.

It is reported that we are now at the risk of becoming dependant on Chinese Communist regime for our Battery supply. So whereas I agree that energy independence would be good thing, the conversion from fossil fuel into Battery technology simply does not achieve that.

On second point - climate change is very slow process, so even us accelerating it still means at very least 5000 years before noticeable change happens... kind of circles back to the video which started this thread - we de facto have huge methane emissions right now, it is debatable why, but the fact is we have those emissions and it may temporarily heat the climate until methane degrades in atmosphere (which takes 15-20 years). So it is entirely possible that once methane emissions ends and methane degrades we can see sudden drop in temperatures by 2C. Basically, what I am saying is that argument of "human cause acceleration" is incomplete, secondly even if it is human caused it would still take thousands of years and therefore argument of "what is more economically viable" becomes irrelevant. The change that takes 500 years to propagate is way too slow to make policy decisions now, and the one which takes 5000 years is totally irrelevant from current economy perspective. 

I agree with you that variety of technologies will be beneficial for us if we decided to colonise other planets. So I have no issue with their development happening, what I disagree instead is that we should be making sacrifices today to prematurely use flawed technologies which present degradation of quality/performance/value right now. I have no doubt that when BEV or HCEV technologies develops to the point where they in all possible ways are better than ICEV people will voluntarily buy them without being forced, same applies to heat pumps etc. Just look at mobile phones - nobody forced people to have them, yet more or less every person on earth has mobile phone. Why? Because that is genuinely good technology where people can see clear utility and benefit of using it. The so called low carbon and green tech is basically synonymous of overprice expensive shaite now, they are not viable as truly competitive options. Again - this is not me speaking against "green tech", I am just saying it has to be actually good and then people will adopt it voluntarily and even stand in the lines to get it, but it is not good as it is today. Today it is basically scam where you have to overpay to get something inferior, or there is some catch in some way, or it is simply subsidised by other people... so it still does not make economic sense, the only difference is that others are wasting money on your purchase (like BEV or heat pump). 

[Malc1]

Then more wind farms and better focussed to get tidal power right eh !  Zero fossil fuels used in this scenario ?? 
 

Horse drawn  carriages to the fore please ….. horse poo is good for the plants ? Which eat the carbon emissions ? 

Create a Non-Scrappage scheme to ensure existing good car stock isn’t wasted on the whim of a musk or Chinese Battery builder creating the myth that EVs are doing us all some good 

AND an analysis of EV lifespan and scrappage costs both in ££££ and environmental costs 

 

Has anyone credible ever done any of this overarching analysis ——- for the benefit of humankind ? 
 

methinks a sensible study by a credible authority, say BP might be a way forward ?

They sure know an awful lot about Energy and fossil fuels, alternative sources of energy and mitigating energy usage 

BP is worldly enough not to push fossil fuels onto us I’m sure 

Maybe the Govt could take summat like this on board …… or perhaps it has already ,,,,,, 

Malc 

[Bluemarlin]

22 hours ago, Linas.P said:

It is reported that we are now at the risk of becoming dependant on Chinese Communist regime for our battery supply. So whereas I agree that energy independence would be good thing, the conversion from fossil fuel into battery technology simply does not achieve that.

On second point - climate change is very slow process, so even us accelerating it still means at very least 5000 years before noticeable change happens... kind of circles back to the video which started this thread - we de facto have huge methane emissions right now, it is debatable why, but the fact is we have those emissions and it may temporarily heat the climate until methane degrades in atmosphere (which takes 15-20 years). So it is entirely possible that once methane emissions ends and methane degrades we can see sudden drop in temperatures by 2C. Basically, what I am saying is that argument of "human cause acceleration" is incomplete, secondly even if it is human caused it would still take thousands of years and therefore argument of "what is more economically viable" becomes irrelevant. The change that takes 500 years to propagate is way too slow to make policy decisions now, and the one which takes 5000 years is totally irrelevant from current economy perspective. 

I agree with you that variety of technologies will be beneficial for us if we decided to colonise other planets. So I have no issue with their development happening, what I disagree instead is that we should be making sacrifices today to prematurely use flawed technologies which present degradation of quality/performance/value right now. I have no doubt that when BEV or HCEV technologies develops to the point where they in all possible ways are better than ICEV people will voluntarily buy them without being forced, same applies to heat pumps etc. Just look at mobile phones - nobody forced people to have them, yet more or less every person on earth has mobile phone. Why? Because that is genuinely good technology where people can see clear utility and benefit of using it. The so called low carbon and green tech is basically synonymous of overprice expensive shaite now, they are not viable as truly competitive options. Again - this is not me speaking against "green tech", I am just saying it has to be actually good and then people will adopt it voluntarily and even stand in the lines to get it, but it is not good as it is today. Today it is basically scam where you have to overpay to get something inferior, or there is some catch in some way, or it is simply subsidised by other people... so it still does not make economic sense, the only difference is that others are wasting money on your purchase (like BEV or heat pump). 

Again, I don't know where you get your 5000, or even 500 years from, but there's plenty of evidence showing the effects of climate change today, such as the increased frequency of storms, flooding, landslides, desert expansion, drought, and a host of other things. As I've said before, you can choose to believe the evidence that points to man made emissions being the cause, or you can choose not believe it. Nothing either of us say will change the other's beliefs on that, and so it's a fruitless area to pursue.

I can't say whether we'll become dependent on China for batteries because, as the demand for the required resources grows, more and more countries are starting to find reserves. What I can say though is, much like cellphones, the technology will move rapidly as the need grows. Lithium may be the answer today, but in 10 or 20 years it could be sodium batteries, or some other technology. There are no hard facts as to what the future will bring, and so it's open to speculation. You speculate that that we're doomed to dependence on China, and to being wedded to expensive tech, and I speculate that we'll innovate our way into better and cheaper solutions. I'd also argue that history is on my side, as in the 1980's, the first cellphone cost around four grand, and ran for an hour on a NiCad Battery.

Let me tell you a story to illustrate this. Around 30 years ago I spoke with a senior director of a large multi national. Cellphones were relatively new then, with poor Battery life, very expensive to run and, with the knowledge and experience of the time, had a limited use case. He told me flatly that he could never see a time in that company's future where they'll ever have a need for them. Less than 30 years later, they're not only essential for any business, but so cheap that even homeless people have them. The point being that it's very easy to dismiss something based on what we know today, whilst forgetting that things change, and that those changes accelerate rapidly once there's some momentum behind them. Today there's momentum behind renewable energy and the move away from fossil fuels, so much so that the energy landscape could be unrecognisable in 30 years time.

No-one is being forced to buy EVs, my last purchase was a hybrid, but could have just as easily been ICE, and the government are set to delay the transistion by another 5 years. Already used EVs are coming down in value, and new ones will follow suit as volumes increase. Like cellphones, and any other new technology, the early adpoters will pay a premium but, as the technology (and the market) matures, the products, and their pricing, will become mainstream.

I understand that you feel that that things might be being forced to move too quickly, and perhaps there's some merit to that view. But the curve is happening, and so one can either ignore it, try to flatten it, or get ahead it. We differ in so much as, at least to some degree, I favour the latter.

[Linas.P]

30 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Again, I don't know where you get your 5000, or even 500 years from, but there's plenty of evidence showing the effects of climate change today, such as the increased frequency of storms, flooding, landslides, desert expansion, drought, and a host of other things. As I've said before, you can choose to believe the evidence that points to man made emissions being the cause, or you can choose not believe it. Nothing either of us say will change the other's beliefs on that, and so it's a fruitless area to pursue.

I can't say whether we'll become dependent on China for batteries because, as the demand for the required resources grows, more and more countries are starting to find reserves. What I can say though is, much like cellphones, the technology will move rapidly as the need grows. Lithium may be the answer today, but in 10 or 20 years it could be sodium batteries, or some other technology. There are no hard facts as to what the future will bring, and so it's open to speculation. You speculate that that we're doomed to dependence on China, and to being wedded to expensive tech, and I speculate that we'll innovate our way into better and cheaper solutions. I'd also argue that history is on my side, as in the 1980's, the first cellphone cost around four grand, and ran for an hour on a NiCad battery.

Let me tell you a story to illustrate this. Around 30 years ago I spoke with a senior director of a large multi national. Cellphones were relatively new then, with poor battery life, very expensive to run and, with the knowledge and experience of the time, had a limited use case. He told me flatly that he could never see a time in that company's future where they'll ever have a need for them. Less than 30 years later, they're not only essential for any business, but so cheap that even homeless people have them. The point being that it's very easy to dismiss something based on what we know today, whilst forgetting that things change, and that those changes accelerate rapidly once there's some momentum behind them. Today there's momentum behind renewable energy and the move away from fossil fuels, so much so that the energy landscape could be unrecognisable in 30 years time.

No-one is being forced to buy EVs, my last purchase was a hybrid, but could have just as easily been ICE, and the government are set to delay the transistion by another 5 years. Already used EVs are coming down in value, and new ones will follow suit as volumes increase. Like cellphones, and any other new technology, the early adpoters will pay a premium but, as the technology (and the market) matures, the products, and their pricing, will become mainstream.

I understand that you feel that that things might be being forced to move too quickly, and perhaps there's some merit to that view. But the curve is happening, and so one can either ignore it, try to flatten it, or get ahead it. We differ in so much as, at least to some degree, I favour the latter.

5000 years is the timeline for all permanent ice to melt on Earth currently agreed by scientist i.e. official end of glacial period and entry into interglacial period. Both are cyclical and normal.  

The storms, landslides, droughts all do happen, but there is no evidence that they are more frequent than they were in the past. I put this down to 1. instant information space 2. politicians just blaming something else i.e. climate change is convenient excuse for collecting more taxes and example give "extreme weather events are more frequent, wouldn't you want to pay more tax, because you are the cause". Flooding I have already addressed, this is 100% absolutelly fake... it is excuse for lacking infrastructure. Simple answer to that - urbanisation coverts the ground with impenetrable roads and pavements, water can't be absorbed, so it pools up and floods place. The answer to that is larger, more complicated and more sophisticated drainage systems, using permeable materials for roads and pavements and in the end of the day simply maintaining existing drainage systems. So more frequent flooding is just "fake news", what is actually happening is poor maintenance and poor drainage planning an implementation, it is not related with climate. Altogether, this could be explained by humans settling in areas which were in the past not suitable for permanent settlement, like floodplains... now we can control flooding, but not sufficiently enough to reliably prevent it all the time.

Why then we mandating batteries with lithium batteries which are fundamentally flawed? Why are we mandating them in 6 years (moving to 11 now). Why don't we first get those technologies (batteries with different and better chemistry) available first and then making decision on mandating them. Why are we mandating highly toxic, damaging, polluting technology of car propulsion now, just to replace it in 10-20 years? Seems very wasteful to me... As well note - just stop oil ecomaniacs quite specifically exists with sole goal to stop oil extraction in UK. Just think about it for a second - UK has limited oil resources, but talking about "energy independence" that is good thing to have our own oil and secondly exploration in UK is proven to be cheaper and cleaner than importing. So talking about energy independence - wouldn't it be right to try to exhaust as much resources as we have logically before importing?

"No-one is being forced to buy EVs" - that is just 100% false, alternative modes of propulsion will be literally BANNED by 2035 (at least it seems like now, as of last week it was 2030). So yes indeed - people are being FORCED to buy flawed BEVs. if we want to compare this to mobile phones, that is equivalent of banning landlines in 1980s and mandating that every household have to have a very flawed and expensive mobile phone OR NOTHING, despite it still being in it's infancy with NiCd batteries. I would repeat - I am not against BEVs or any other type of EVs. I am against mandating the flawed and largely unproven technology now, whilst it is still unproven and flawed. Instead I am saying we should invest in that technology make it viable and then people will buy it voluntarily in 2045. I may still keep classic RC-F or LC500 in 2045 as a weekend car to enjoy on some synthetic fuel, but I have no issue having daily hydrogen/aluminium oxide battery hybrid, which will have 120 miles range chargeable in 1 minute and extra hydrogen on board to go 1000 miles, when this technology will be cheap enough that I can buys such car for 50% less than equivalent ICEV. So my argument should not be confused with anti-change and anti-technology argument.

My argument is instead - uneducated people who don't understand climate processes have jumped to conclusion that we are living in some sort of "climate catastrophe", despite there being no evidence for that, likewise they don't understand and don't have perspective of boundaries of naturally occurring climate change. As such they wrongly concluded that climate change is both human made and bad, and furthermore that it is imminent and imminent tragic outcomes are about to materialise, both of which is false. And therefore based on their wrong perspective and wrong conclusions they are advocating for strict, immediate and illogical restrictions which will significantly diminish our quality of life. So this is one group. Second group is politicians and government who were looking for excuse to extract more tax, they are always looking for one, because their inefficiency and corruption wastes large amount of tax collected, therefore it seems like there is never enough money ion the budget to keep even basic services going. Now this second group found argument of first group as convenient excuse to raise the taxes. I want to be very clear here - second group DOES NOT CARE about environment, they just using ecomentalists argument as an excuse to raise taxes and raise more money, that is all. 

What I am saying is that technological advances are good and it is undeniable that there must be more efficient way to propel us than controlled explosions of flammable liquid, however we have not yet mastered those other technologies and anything that is mandated is always bad. It basically does exactly opposite from what you advocating. If mobile phones would have been mandated over landlines in 1980s, then they would have never improved to the level we have today. WHY? because once you mandate flawed technology you remove any incentive to improve it, if manufacturers would have had captive market for NaCd batteries phones, then they would have never even tried to improve them. Why fix something that "works"?! So same with lithium powered electric cars - they are scam, they are trash, they do not work, they are shaite technology demonstrators, sure that technology has huge potential, but it is not there yet. So the answer here is - "go back to your dungeon and comeback when you figured it out". If we now mandate adoption of flawed technology, then we just removing the incentive to improve it!

[Mr Vlad]

hey look what I saw today on YouTube. 

Bye bye EV's lol  Hydrogen is coming oh yeah.

 

[Linas.P]

The hydrogen is long solved as far as powering the car with it, to be fair the same applies to electric engines - they are all solved efficient and simple at the point where electricity is turned into rotational force.  

For hydrogen the fuel itself is problem, truth is - there is no clean hydrogen nor there is technology to make green hydrogen. Yes sure - it could be made from solar or wind, but same electricity then is better used otherwise. Why wasted 70%+ electricity in making the hydrogen.

For electric the problem is Battery and charging, the electric motors are fine and great, but they need large batteries and large batteries require long time to charge.

So sad to say but above solves nothing... 

P.S. just to correct some incorrect statements in the video - hydrogen is not "less efficient to burn", the problem here is the volume. So liquid hydrogen indeed has more power, the problem is that in practice it is never liquid, because it requires immense pressure or well past -200C to liquify. So what happens is that 1L of hydrogen gas has significantly less power than 1L of petrol, if somehow theoretically on could have 1L of liquid hydrogen then it would have more power. And hydrogen burns completely efficiently, actually more efficiently than petrol because it 100% pure H2 gas, further it has cooling effect, but the problem again is that when it is in gas form one requires loads of volume to make it turn the engine at all. That is why he is saying "we are injection limited" despite 16 injectors.

[Mr Vlad]

Eh up Linas. You're a bit wrong me thinks but never mind. Both engineers stated quite clearly even thicko me understood. Yes they, for now, have 16 injectors that's because they're trying to get more power. 

They're working with Bosch to make larger injectors then they can turn up the wick on the supercharger which is basically on tick over at present. 

That truck presently has over 500bhp. The tank on the back holds 3kg (if memory serves). Oh and the range was near 300 miles. And in california they have many many hydrogen filling stations.

All this krapp about green hydrogen blah blah blah. Shed loads of electricity is used to make petrol and more. It's the negativity towards something simple and good that spoils things. 

Remember. Dirt is Good.

What's green about a coal fired generator of electricity?

So please Linas. Don't be a spoil sport.

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Eh up Linas. You're a bit wrong me thinks but never mind. Both engineers stated quite clearly even thicko me understood. Yes they, for now, have 16 injectors that's because they're trying to get more power. 

They're working with Bosch to make larger injectors then they can turn up the wick on the supercharger which is basically on tick over at present. 

That truck presently has over 500bhp. The tank on the back holds 3kg (if memory serves). Oh and the range was near 300 miles. And in california they have many many hydrogen filling stations.

All this krapp about green hydrogen blah blah blah. Shed loads of electricity is used to make petrol and more. It's the negativity towards something simple and good that spoils things. 

Remember. Dirt is Good.

What's green about a coal fired generator of electricity?

So please Linas. Don't be a spoil sport.

Yes, but that is all irrelevant if hydrogen itself has double the Co2 content than even the petrol. I am all for keeping the ICE and I love the thermo-mechanical nature of it, but why get rid of one perfectly fine engine running on petrol an replace it with more polluting engine running on hydrogen. Sure it has no tailpipe emissions, but that is just flawed way looking at it.

As I said - the engine, both for hydrogen combustion and for hydrogen cell are fine. They were fine for a while now. BMW has done, Toyota has done, I believe few more companies have done it. CAT excavators have done it. It works, worked for long time.  The hydrogen as a fuel is a problem. No less the problem as electricity generated by coal fired power plants. 

So let's not get distracted here - we have ICE engines which works completely fine, cars are minor contributor to climate change anyway. This hotrod is cool and all, basically it is science hobby project, but it isn't "green", nor is it "clean" and even if it would be it addresses the issue that doesn't exist. Cars are not an issue, IC engines are not an issue - they are looking at the wrong place. I am against stupid mandates and making issue of the climate despite it not being an issue, but likewise I am against the solutions that doesn't solve anything - why transition to hydrogen if the result of that is just more pollution? So not only we are inconvenienced by the pollution itself and never ending nonsense from ecomentalists, but we as well are actually polluting more - how does that make sense? 

 

[Boomer54]

7 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Yes, but that is all irrelevant if hydrogen itself has double the Co2 content than even the petrol. I am all for keeping the ICE and I love the thermo-mechanical nature of it, but why get rid of one perfectly fine engine running on petrol an replace it with more polluting engine running on hydrogen. Sure it has no tailpipe emissions, but that is just flawed way looking at it.

As I said - the engine, both for hydrogen combustion and for hydrogen cell are fine. They were fine for a while now. BMW has done, Toyota has done, I believe few more companies have done it. CAT excavators have done it. It works, worked for long time.  The hydrogen as a fuel is a problem. No less the problem as electricity generated by coal fired power plants. 

So let's not get distracted here - we have ICE engines which works completely fine, cars are minor contributor to climate change anyway. This hotrod is cool and all, basically it is science hobby project, but it isn't "green", nor is it "clean" and even if it would be it addresses the issue that doesn't exist. Cars are not an issue, IC engines are not an issue - they are looking at the wrong place. I am against stupid mandates and making issue of the climate despite it not being an issue, but likewise I am against the solutions that doesn't solve anything - why transition to hydrogen if the result of that is just more pollution? So not only we are inconvenienced by the pollution itself and never ending nonsense from ecomentalists, but we as well are actually polluting more - how does that make sense? 

 

I don't see any completely right ,or wrong arguments so far on this issue. What I do see is the usual incomplete cost benefit analysis. Typically, as is the case here, this exists because there are many competing interest groups whose agenda benefits by overlooking certain factors. It could only help by having a 'jury' like commission, qualifed to judge ,but without the self interest to do so in a biased manner.

[ganzoom]

14 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

hey look what I saw today on YouTube. 

Bye bye EV's lol  Hydrogen is coming oh yeah.

 

Hydrogen mass development is going really well....

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/danish-taxi-company-seeks-help-to-fuel-its-100-stranded-hydrogen-vehicles-after-nation-s-h2-stations-closed/2-1-1521473

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/analysis-it-is-now-almost-14-times-more-expensive-to-drive-a-toyota-hydrogen-car-in-california-than-a-comparable-tesla-ev/2-1-1519315

https://innovationorigins.com/en/first-shell-now-motive-hydrogen-fuel-station-closures-continue-in-the-uk/

Page 43 gives you BPs latest projections on hydrogen usage in personal transportation.....spoiler alert, BP doesn't seem to see a future in it.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2023.pdf

[Boomer54]

Again, no offence, but if I want impartial I am probably not going to seek it from BP ,or Shell, or indeed any energy company. Bit like asking J & J for an opinion on the use of Talc !

[Malc1]

23 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Again, no offence, but if I want impartial I am probably not going to seek it from BP ,or Shell, or indeed any energy company. Bit like asking J & J for an opinion on the use of Talc !

I really can't see impartiality from any one body .  energy coys, nor Govts nor political dimwits .......... the best we can hope for is the likes of BP who have been in the energy business forever trying to do the very best to come up with the likely least damaging solution to our transportation and overall energy needs .  and themselves turning a profit and then paying Corpn Tax etc etc etc

I remember talking with the BP research guys maybe some 30 years back about their never ending research and input into solar power developments .....  solar panels especially 

And now their development of Hydrogen Power delivery capability from their plants up north in the uk somewhere ........   .  to eventually feed into their UK network of 1200+ petrol stations across the uk  .  ( where and when is my HP Ls700 coming from ? ) 

Come 2035 I've no doubt that EVs will have progressed much further than today ......  ICE cars will also have developed somewhat to remove the dreaded stuff and my 2 X Ls400s will have reached the 40 year MOT and Road Tax zero needs and then be able to freely pollute in what's now the ULEZ zones .  throughout the Nation 😅

Maybe the EVs will have some quick fuel / petrol station recharging capability too coz at the moment there's a HUGE lot of people who have no physical ability to home-recharge an EV .... .  like me !

Then we'll maybe have an EV Scrappage Scheme for these early models that will be soooooo inefficient 

Let's see what 2035 brings eh !  ......  Hopefully a lot more wisdom and sense than we are seeing today 

 

Malc

[Boomer54]

"BP who have been in the energy business forever trying to do the very best to come up with up with the likely least damaging solution "

Hmm, may be life as left me a tad too cynical to eat that. Seriously, I could give you a list of corporate malfeasance that would be long enough to keep you  so busy you would be late for lunch. Lest that read as me anti whatever, I assure you I am a dyed in the wool capitalist. However, when it comes to human nature also a realist. The key is in aligning goals, public good with corporate goals. That way you can trust in self interest not damaging the end result.

[Malc1]

4 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

The key is in aligning goals, public good with corporate goals. That way you can trust in self interest not damaging the end result.

I think one could add to that  "  political goals " ........  not much hope of aligning that where public interests are concerned 😥

Malc

[Mr Vlad]

Eh up Linas. That hotrod IS clean. Units of emissions, which escape me, from the hotrod are nearly half of the very best from small ICE engined cars. There's another unit which takes over at 50 something which is dream land territory but they are looking at making that hotrod a 20. 

So please tell us where the hotrod isn't clean. It's a high power V8 that sounds ruddy awesome and the stuff that comes out of the zorst is beautiful noise and water. 

[Linas.P]

5 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

I don't see any completely right ,or wrong arguments so far on this issue. What I do see is the usual incomplete cost benefit analysis. Typically, as is the case here, this exists because there are many competing interest groups whose agenda benefits by overlooking certain factors. It could only help by having a 'jury' like commission, qualifed to judge ,but without the self interest to do so in a biased manner.

  The argument isn't complicated here. I have no motivation to convince anyone of anything here, but I am just pointing out "missing" perspectives. 

It is not different from BEVs being called "zero emission vehicles", which is very obviously false. It is right to call them lower emission. Same as 1.6 Ecoboost Fiesta is lower emissions than 5.0L Ford Mustang, but they are not "zero". It is undeniably large amount of emissions generated by making these vehicles and electricity that they use is as well not "zero" emissions. If you want the panel to tell you that then it is fair enough, but what I usually use to answer this question is large study that European Union Commission did, tens of thousands of cars, millions miles and 8 years. And they concluded that "average" BEV is about 30% cleaner than "average" ICEV over their "lifetime". Now I put many things in "quotes" because there is issue with the language used - what is average BEV, what is average ICEV and what is their lifetime? So the conclusion changes depending on those variables, BUT the most comprehensive study to the date concluded that with EU energy mix (which is by the way most important thing for conclusion) the BEVs are 30% cleaner. Meaning over their lifetime they still emit 70% of pollution compared to ICEV. So they are NOT zero emissions. And that is before we even start arguing about the charging, infrastructure etc. Note - the electric motor of electric car is not an issue, the Battery and charging it is an issue.

Same argument is about Hydrogen. It is actually very simple - Hydrogen is colour coded depending on how it was produced https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/hydrogen-colour-spectrum#:~:text=Green hydrogen%2C blue hydrogen%2C brown,between the types of hydrogen. this is simplified so everyone understand. Ideally what we want is "White" hydrogen, that is naturally occurring and there are no emissions burning it, but despite hydrogen being most abundant element in universe on Earth this pretty much does not exist and there are no plans of extracting it at the moment. 

Then we  are left with "Pink" (nuclear), "Green" (renewables) or "Yellow" (solar) hydrogen, in principle these all could be just called "Green". Problem is - 70% of electricity generated is then wasted in the process to make this hydrogen. It is in principle lower emissions, but we may as well use low emissions electricity itself, why use it in wasteful way to convert it to hydrogen to then inefficiently burn it? In my opinion "Pink" hydrogen is most promising as nuclear reactors have to run at consistent rate, therefore we have huge waste at night (hence the cheaper tariff in the past), in fact up-to 40% of electricity ever produced by nuclear plats is wasted this way as it just never get used at night and it would make sense to at least use this wasted electricity to generate hydrogen, but realistically we talking about niche product, small amounts... it may be capable of running fleet of 10,000 cars in UK... what about remaining 30+ millions? As well if we happened to have BEV charging infrastructure and if we would force owners to charge them exactly at the time when there is surplus electricity, then technically speaking it would be "cleaner" to just charge those existing BEVs anyway (this is Elun Mushks argument, he is liar, but on this one he is right).

We are left with then - Blue and Grey are by-products of oil production, approximately 1% by volume. So from 100 barrels of oil extracted we can get 1 barrel of hydrogen (currently it is burned, those are the fires above the oil rigs + other gasses like methane). As such if we talking about the future without hydrocarbon fuels we automatically lose these hydrogen sources. Black and Brown are respectively made from burning natural gas, coal, or oil to produce electricity and then turn it into hydrogen - self-explanatory really. Turquoise and Blue relies on yet unproven carbon storage technologies... I am not going to waste time discussing them, basically the whole process doesn't make sense as if we could capture the carbon, then we can simply capture the carbon and continue burning normal fuels, why bother making hydrogen.

What sort of hydrogen - we have? What are they using in their hot rod project? Most likely Grey hydrogen which is by-product of oil production and therefore is not scalable and not very clean, or largest by quantity available, but very very dirty Black or Brown. Finally, very low scale and not very useful Green. So as amazing as they car is, it is actually polluting more than equivalent petrol car.

One day we may have nuclear fusion, not sure what colour they going to use, but at that point we will have such abundance of electricity that it will make sense to convert it into hydrogen, that day is not even close thought. 

59 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Eh up Linas. That hotrod IS clean. Units of emissions, which escape me, from the hotrod are nearly half of the very best from small ICE engined cars. There's another unit which takes over at 50 something which is dream land territory but they are looking at making that hotrod a 20. 

So please tell us where the hotrod isn't clean. It's a high power V8 that sounds ruddy awesome and the stuff that comes out of the zorst is beautiful noise and water. 

As above - because fuel coming into it IS NOT CLEAN.

What you focusing on here is "tailpipe emissions". Yes it emits water, amazing... but to get the hydrogen it is filled with somebody somewhere had to emit more pollution than equivalent petrol car would make. 

If you just looking from perspective of city air quality, then fine - this has no tailpipe emissions. If you looking from perspective of climate change, then this is actually even worse than petrol or diesel equivalent. 

 

[Mr Vlad]

Ah I see now what you mean.

[First_Lexus]

I’ve read this thread with interest. My own perspective is summed up by the enclosed satirical piece. Silly perhaps, but the element of truth - well, make your own minds up.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/petrol-cars-are-killing-the-planet-says-gen-z-girl-expecting-massive-shein-delivery-20230924240455

We should be trying to do the right thing for our environment, both locally, nationally and globally. That means reuse, recycle and act sustainably. Consumption for its own sake is damaging on many levels.

Focussing on one thing - such as EVs - whilst conveniently ignoring other factors will solve nothing.