This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Seagles Croydon 26 Jul 23 12.04pm | |
---|---|
They've never bothered me and until they do, they can do what they want. I bet half of what they do is made up by the media anyway, to try and brainwash us against them. But as soon as the so called eco zealots come knocking at my door or stopping my train, I'll be telling them. Not on my doorstep son. Go and peddle your sh!t somewhere else. I'm happy with the life I've got, and I'm not prepared to changed. Not for you, not for myself, not even for my kids or my grandkids. That won't happen anyway. Apart from the "mainstream" news I've not seen any evidence that these protesters even exist so there's nothing to talk about really. It's just smoke and mirrors.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 26 Jul 23 1.23pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
I’ve said all along it’s bollox. Blaming man made emmisions for hot weather in the med that ironically also happened 50 years,100years etc ago. Hold on to your dollar as it’s goner get taken over this s***e. How scientific Taking ideological stances out of it (and the science) ultimately there's nothing good about polluting the planet with noxious fumes, plastics, PFAS, endless deforestation and so on. So the path we're on is the path we need to be on. I'd rather do what's best for the long term prospects of the planet and it's population. Maintaining the status quo does not fit anymore. Sure, change is hard, people lose out. Deal with it. The alternative, long term, is much much worse
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 26 Jul 23 1.45pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
It is more expensive per mile to charge an electric vehicle at any commercial outlet now and that’s with the power only at 30% ish clean generation. It will only get more expensive as maintaining and installing green source electric is increased. It’s naive to believe this won’t carry on being the case. Not everyone who owns an electric vehicle or who will; has unlimited finance or the ability to charge it domestically. So what you're saying is... having a majority clean/renewable energy mix (maybe we get there in 20-30 years time) is and will always be more expensive for the consumer than the current fossil led approach? This is factually incorrect. Take wind, for example. There is of course an installation and planning tariff (as there is for all power, including much higher figures for nuclear and gas turbine, for example) but once operational the cost per mW generated is unbelievably good. In some cases it can be cost positive. Simply isn't true. if it was, business would not bother investing as there would be no business case. In the US in 2017 wind was coming in 50% cheaper per KwH than gas turbine power stations. And that's then – I would assume that discount has only grown larger the more mature the industry becomes. Energy in general has spiked due to Ukraine and other factors, but is already coming down. So for balance, cost per mile pre-Ukraine was cheaper than fuel. Tesla superchargers are still cheaper than fuel. Charging from home even at these elevated electricity prices is, guess what, significantly cheaper than fuel. Some chargers are a rip off, sure. But in order to get to mass adoption the financials have to work for consumers, and they will, otherwise the business case dies and so do the companies. If you were to replace all petrol stations in the UK with electric infrastructure and charging took an average of 3-5 minute depending on amount of charge, you're in the same place we are now. Possibly even slightly better considering not everyone who has an EV will need to use such stations regularly. Unlike petrol and diesel. Secondly you're overlooking the fact that as the market matures, second hand cars become more and more prevalent. This makes EVs cheaper, and more accessible. And so on, and so on. Do you think everyone had or could afford a car when they were first invented? Even at the point of the Model T era that wasn't the case. Iterative process.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 26 Jul 23 1.52pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
I wish I had your optimism. Optimism doesn't really factor into it. Once business gets on board in a big way, that's it. Path set. I don't think they'd be making those decisions if there was no business sense. All the big brands have seen Tesla become successful and prove out the business model/adoption rates/consumer appetite... and now they've seen a positive test case they're all in. I think 2030 will become 2035... all depends on the status of the charging infrastructure. That said, I would think 'legacy' ICE cars will be knocking about for decades post cut off. Banning gas boilers may happen eventually, but not as soon as is being mooted. This is actually a great example of going too early – Hydrogen isn't viable and not all homes work with expensive heat pumps. So I'd assume gas CH to be a thing for at least the next 50 years, tapering down over time.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 26 Jul 23 1.57pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Optimism doesn't really factor into it. Once business gets on board in a big way, that's it. Path set. I don't think they'd be making those decisions if there was no business sense. All the big brands have seen Tesla become successful and prove out the business model/adoption rates/consumer appetite... and now they've seen a positive test case they're all in. I think 2030 will become 2035... all depends on the status of the charging infrastructure. That said, I would think 'legacy' ICE cars will be knocking about for decades post cut off. Banning gas boilers may happen eventually, but not as soon as is being mooted. This is actually a great example of going too early – Hydrogen isn't viable and not all homes work with expensive heat pumps. So I'd assume gas CH to be a thing for at least the next 50 years, tapering down over time. That all sounds correct to me. I wouldn't hold too much optimism for targets and dates being met by the ambitions outlined today, however the course will probably remain the same even if the timeframes get pushed further.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 26 Jul 23 2.07pm | |
---|---|
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 26 Jul 23 2.08pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Optimism doesn't really factor into it. Once business gets on board in a big way, that's it. Path set. I don't think they'd be making those decisions if there was no business sense. All the big brands have seen Tesla become successful and prove out the business model/adoption rates/consumer appetite... and now they've seen a positive test case they're all in. I think 2030 will become 2035... all depends on the status of the charging infrastructure. That said, I would think 'legacy' ICE cars will be knocking about for decades post cut off. Banning gas boilers may happen eventually, but not as soon as is being mooted. This is actually a great example of going too early – Hydrogen isn't viable and not all homes work with expensive heat pumps. So I'd assume gas CH to be a thing for at least the next 50 years, tapering down over time. Let’s reconvene in 2031 to see what the situation actually is…. On a side note, there was and still is a business case for building more reservoirs and updating the infrastructure before more housing estates obliterate the South East, yet the houses come way before the infrastructure. Hence my pessimism that electric charging capacity will follow after the need for it and everybody suffers in the interim.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Matov 26 Jul 23 2.32pm | |
---|---|
The bigger question is not about getting rid of fossil fuels but why they were not got rid of ages ago? Nuclear was and is the answer. From the 50's onwards. Only just now coming to terms with how the fossil fuel industry have set up much of the supposedly 'climate' focused groups by way of maintaining their dominance. For example, the first donation for 'Friends of the Earth' came from the boss of an oil company and ever since, the primary focus has been to stymie the use of Atomic energy. The solution is there. Technology already in place. We don't need to burn fossil fuels and have not needed to do so for decades. That is the scandal in all of this.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 26 Jul 23 2.58pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Matov
The bigger question is not about getting rid of fossil fuels but why they were not got rid of ages ago? Nuclear was and is the answer. From the 50's onwards. Only just now coming to terms with how the fossil fuel industry have set up much of the supposedly 'climate' focused groups by way of maintaining their dominance. For example, the first donation for 'Friends of the Earth' came from the boss of an oil company and ever since, the primary focus has been to stymie the use of Atomic energy. The solution is there. Technology already in place. We don't need to burn fossil fuels and have not needed to do so for decades. That is the scandal in all of this. Yep. As was recently shown they all knew about the potential for environmental damage in the 80s, and sat on it. So yeah, there's that Nuclear isn't the sole answer though, IMO. It's hideously expensive and creates serious problems with waste disposal that aren't easily solved. Location – people don't want them next to their towns etc etc. It's a long way from a silver bullet. However, nuclear should play a decent role within the future energy mix. The call for ditching it entirely is nonsensical in my opinion, but it isn't affordable, practical or secure for it to be the sole energy source.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 26 Jul 23 3.03pm | |
---|---|
Constant one liners Depends how fast you move, and how soon you embrace change. I would think a lot of those target dates will get watered down once people work out the actual route to achieve the aims. Pace of change will also have to vary country to country. Always works like this – set ambitious target, then work out how to get there (and adjust accordingly). Doesn't mean you just sit on your hands and whistle as an alternative, though.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 26 Jul 23 3.05pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
Let’s reconvene in 2031 to see what the situation actually is…. On a side note, there was and still is a business case for building more reservoirs and updating the infrastructure before more housing estates obliterate the South East, yet the houses come way before the infrastructure. Hence my pessimism that electric charging capacity will follow after the need for it and everybody suffers in the interim. I can't see it being seamless, when has that ever happened before. But it will have to happen. Tesla decided to cut out the middleman and just do it themselves. Probably the best approach. Business and profit always finds a way
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CrazyBadger Ware 26 Jul 23 4.46pm | |
---|---|
Until it becomes cost effective to not make and import stuff from China, or mr and Mrs Smith don't want to get 2 weeks of Sun every year, or the Average Joe starts eating Welsh Lamb instead of the New Zealand Lamb flown in on air-Fridges or ... you get my point. To really affect climate change such a big change in behaviour is required - by everyone - that it is almost certainly impossible to achieve in any real timeframe without devastating peoples lives. We can make small changes - eat locally, sustainably, stop buying Plastic etc.. that's easier said than done when prices are what they are. This is why the drive needs to come from the big companies. But there is no real appetite for them to change when it'll affect their profits, and their ever increasing pockets.
"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.