the truth about electric cars

[EnterName]

12 hours ago, lol-lol said:

I am far more worried that the price of petroleum spirit I put in my ICE cars is much effected by the whims of people like Putin and the Saudi and Jemmy the Hunt in his budget next week when at least I know the price of lecky is going down big time soon and if I fancy it I can make lots of lecky myself and can fill my EV. Don't think I can do that with oil. 

I have no objection to anyone running an electric car. If you can buy and run a car for peanuts, I am perfectly content and willing to cheer you on.

However I DO have an objection to people campaigning to coerce me into a car of their choice.

 

And I think that's at the root of the problem with resistance to EVs. (Not to mention a whole load of other issues.)

Yeah, we bat around technical, logistical and practical issues, but IMO the core of the problem is more simple than that.

 

There are a substantial number of people who would like to be just left alone to do their thing. (I'll call these people "Passivists".)

There are substantial number of other people who insist that the Passivists, who want to be left alone to do their thing, CANNOT be left alone to do their thing, as them doing their thing causes an existential crisis for the world.  I'll call people in that second group, "Activists".

 

The Activists campaign and lobby Governments to intervene and coerce the Passivists into doing what the Activists want them to do.

If the Activists don't get what they want as quickly as they want, they block roads, vandalise buildings and property, and generally make a nuisance of themselves to the Passivists.

Social pressure is applied by the Activists onto the Passivists. The other side of that, is that social credit is given for compliance with the Activist agenda. (Hence we often see Avatar changes to show support for current thing.)

Now the Activists don't enjoy bossing people around, their social and legal coercion is for the greater good, of course. The Activists are convinced the Passivists will thank them later.

If the Passivists aren't grateful, perhaps because they are old and ignorant, then the children of the Passivists will thank the Activists, and hopefully become Activists too.

 

Put simply:

Activists are determined to force their will upon the Passivists.

Passivists want the Activist to "Sod off, and leave me alone!".

 

You can look at a load of the problems we have recently seen, and at their core, it always comes down to Activists trying to push Passivists around, and Passivists wanting the Activists to "Sod off and leave me alone!"

EVs, Lockdowns, Vaccines, and doubtless many more.

 

Digging deeper, I think there's fundamental differences in how Activists and Passivists view the world, specifically when it comes to risk, but that's heading off topic.

 

But you can easily identify the Activists and Passivists: The Activists try and impose change, the Passivists resist it.

Edited 25 February by EnterName
Typo corrected

[Ootohere]

I do wish that people not interested in stuff would sod off and not bother telling others how uninterested they are.   Or repeat crap gleaned from others not interested or anti.    I don't bother going on the internet and looking at people pro or anti vapes, pro smoking, or low sugar drinks.

[Graham Butcher]

6 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

An EV's traction battery is both a store for electrical energy and a thermal mass store too.  Particularly when an EV's battery is pre-conditioned before a journey it will acquire thermal mass that can be used to warm the passengers as well optimise its electrical capacity for maximum absorption of electrical energy.  The battery can be used to directly supply the ancillary electrical devices needs such as instrumentation, power steering etc. It does this with about 90% efficiency.  The energy can be bought from renewable sources.

 

A hydrocarbon fuel tank in an ICE car supplied an engine which converts the chemical energy in to kinetic energy which is mostly used for forward motion but also some oth is power is used to drive an alternator to provide electricity to the ever increasing electrical systems though out the car and it does this at around one third efficiency and as a secondary bi-product outputs a lethal cocktail of poisonous gases and particles and then one has to indirectly pay some despote to get some more of the stuff similar to a heroine addict getting some more smack.      

 

Yes they are both energy stores for vehicle propulsion but as technically efficient and environmental solution they cannot be much more different.

 

You are trying so hard to ignore the facts are as I said. Run of out liquid fuel through a leak or consumption then your car is going nowhere till you resolve it. The same is true in your EV car if the traction battery runs out of power, your car is going nowhere until you recharge it! As to powering the instruments etc, then both cars have a low voltage battery dedicated to power them. 

 

Both ICE and EV need a power source, one comes a visible liquid, the other from something you cannot see, but both are needed to make the cars move, no power, no driving. 

 

You just have to try and defend the EV at each point, just accept the fact that they cannot do the impossible and run on air. 🙄

Edited 25 February by Graham Butcher

[Ootohere]

I just spotted something yesterday about Octopus.  Never read fully then or looked now.   When there are 10 million of their customers that can charge and store and feed back electricity to the grid then the electricity could be free.   Lovely.    Today I need 2 charges.  First full charge was free.  110 miles worth.  Next will be 20 kWh at 55 pence a kWh. So £11.  The. Tonight free again.    So happy enough with that.    Looks like being a good day for BEV efficiency.  Off to do the South West Coastal 300. (Scotland)

Edited 25 February by Rooted

[lol-lol]

31 minutes ago, EnterName said:

I have no objection to anyone running an electric car. If you can buy and run a car for peanuts, I am perfectly content and willing to cheer you on.

However I DO have an objection to people campaigning to coerce me into a car of their choice.

And I think that's at the root of the problem with resistance to EVs. (Not to mention a whole load of other issues.)

Yeah, we bat around technical, logistical and practical issues, but IMO the core of the problem is more simple than that.

There are a substantial number of people who would like to be just left alone to do their thing. (I'll call these people "Passivists".)

There are substantial number of other people who insist that the Passivists, who want to be left alone to do their thing, CANNOT be left alone to do their thing, as them doing their thing causes an existential crisis for the world.  I'll call people in that second group, "Activists".

The Activists campaign and lobby Governments to intervene and coerce the Passivists into doing what the Activists want them to do.

If the Activists don't get what they want as quickly as they want, they block roads, vandalise buildings and property, and generally make a nuisance of themselves to the Passivists.

Social pressure is applied by the Activists onto the Passivists. The other side of that, is that social credit is given for compliance with the Activist agenda. (Hence we often see Avatar changes to show support for current thing.)

Now the Activists don't enjoy bossing people around, their social and legal coercion is for the greater good, of course. The Activists are convinced the Passivists will thank them later.

If the Passivists aren't grateful, perhaps because they are old and ignorant, then the children of the Passivists will thank the Activists, and hopefully become Activists too.

Put simply:

Activists are determined to force their will upon the Passivists.

Passivists want the Activist to "Sod off, and leave me alone!".

You can look at a load of the problems we have recently seen, and at their core, it always comes down to Activists trying to push Passivists around, and Passivists wanting the Activists to "Sod off and leave me alone!"

EVs, Lockdowns, Vaccines, and doubtless many more.

Digging deeper, I think there's fundamental differences in how Activists and Passivists view the world, specifically when it comes to risk, but that's heading off topic.

But you can easily identify the Activists and Passivists: The Activists try and impose change, the Passivists resist it.

 

We all breath the same air and live on the same planet which scientist tell us is under-going massive climate change.

 

Governments can take various routes to reduce the Carbon, NOX and PM pollution and mostly I am impressed with what they have done.  The UK with their subsidies for EVs and home chargers initially and now such schemes such as salary sacrifice for EV leases have been and are welcome.  In combination with this we need for fuel duties to at least keep up with inflation in my view so I would like to see at least a two pence per litre rise in fuel duty next week on March 6th in the budget as well as Vehicle Excise Duties going up, which is of course scaled to CO2 emissions also broadly in line with inflation, 4% or so.

 

So for those who run vehicles running on hydrocarbons that this sector is continual taxed more and more until the sheer economics of comparatively running an ICE compared to an EV encourages the jump to EVs.  As now and increasingly those who run ICE cars subsidize those that run EVs as is happening now under UK government tax laws and many countries around the world.

 

Banning, or taxation dis-incentivising, older EVs from cities is of course is another tool in the toolbox being used to speed up the transition.  Yes I think the UK could use another carrot rather than stick ie a new scrappage scheme to get those ten year and older ICE cars off the road.  

 

So in summary I am an advocate of freedom of choice but not when in damaged my health or that of my offspring and the economic future by helping along the demise of the environment and climate which makes us unlikely to be able to feed ourselves or makes large parts of the world uninhabitable so that people are forced to migrate to those bits of land that are still habitable.  Freedom has its limits when consequences of those choices massively affect us all.

 

[EnterName]

37 minutes ago, Rooted said:

I do wish that people not interested in stuff would sod off and not bother telling others how uninterested they are.   Or repeat crap gleaned from others not interested or anti.    I don't bother going on the internet and looking at people pro or anti vapes, pro smoking, or low sugar drinks.

I am not sure if this is a response to my post, but if it is, I don't think you understand why people object to coercion.

If it's not, as you were. 👍

[lol-lol]

16 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

You are trying so hard to ignore the facts are as I said. Run of out liquid fuel through a leak or consumption then your car is going nowhere till you resolve it. The same is true in your EV car if the traction battery runs out of power, your car is going nowhere until you recharge it! As to powering the instruments etc, then both cars have a low voltage battery dedicated to power them. 

Both ICE and EV need a power source, one comes a visible liquid, the other from something you cannot see, but both are needed to make the cars move, no power, no driving. 

You just have to try and defend the EV at each point, just accept the fact that they cannot do the impossible and run on air. 🙄

 

But they can run on sun shine, or wind, or tidal. Some forms of these energies can be produced at home or by renewable companies like Octopus or Gridserve and many others.

 

The liquid hydrocarbon, or hydrocarbon gas, has to be released from wells in the ground, North Sea, Russia, Saudi or where ever, refined and then sold from a few thousand specialist outlets ie fuel stations, by massive conglomerates, who oft make obscene profits, and vehicles who use this liquid rarely hold enough of this liquid to do more than 1000 kms.  When shortages occur drivers of ICE vehicles go nuts.

 

EV owners just go home or two a public charging station and charge up as the electricity comes from massively diverse sources so that if one is on short supply the Grid switches to another.  I have an ICE car and a feel better when it is sat on the drive with 550 miles range but happier with the EV which only has 240 miles of range but there are numerous ways I can refill it to keep it running not only tomorrow but next week, month, year etc. 

 

EVs are just so much more versatile in their energy acquiring plus the battery, as I said, acts not just a energy store but a thermal one as well in advanced EVs.

It is like comparing dinosaurs/reptiles to mammals.  ICE cars cannot adapt (maybe other than switch to hydrogen) whereas EVs are infinitely more flexible as to where they get their energy from ie Grid, home, destination charging whilst eating, shopping.  No contest.  

 

[Winston_Woof]

a remake of Mad Max with EVs just wouldn't be the same ;o)

[EnterName]

3 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

We all breath the same air and live on the same planet which scientist tell us is under-going massive climate change.

 

Governments can take various routes to reduce the Carbon, NOX and PM pollution and mostly I am impressed with what they have done.  The UK with their subsidies for EVs and home chargers initially and now such schemes such as salary sacrifice for EV leases have been and are welcome.  In combination with this we need for fuel duties to at least keep up with inflation in my view so I would like to see at least a two pence per litre rise in fuel duty next week on March 6th in the budget as well as Vehicle Excise Duties going up, which is of course scaled to CO2 emissions also broadly in line with inflation, 4% or so.

 

So for those who run vehicles running on hydrocarbons that this sector is continual taxed more and more until the sheer economics of comparatively running an ICE compared to an EV encourages the jump to EVs.  As now and increasingly those who run ICE cars subsidize those that run EVs as is happening now under UK government tax laws and many countries around the world.

 

Banning, or taxation dis-incentivising, older EVs from cities is of course is another tool in the toolbox being used to speed up the transition.  Yes I think the UK could use another carrot rather than stick ie a new scrappage scheme to get those ten year and older ICE cars off the road.  

 

So in summary I am an advocate of freedom of choice but not when in damaged my health or that of my offspring and the economic future by helping along the demise of the environment and climate which makes us unlikely to be able to feed ourselves or makes large parts of the world uninhabitable so that people are forced to migrate to those bits of land that are still habitable.  Freedom has its limits when consequences of those choices massively affect us all.

 

The environmental argument doesn't hold water for me. That "global boiling" nonsense if strictly for the kids. I'm old enough to have seen climate alarmism for decades.

Example:

I've gone through the CO2 maths before (probably on this thread, but certainly somewhere on Brisky). Even if the UK stopped ALL CO2 emission (assuming CO2 reduction is desirable, and I'm not convinced it is) then it would have next to no effect on global CO2. The models are always garbage because they are simply not sophisticated enough to cope with all the variables that have an effect.

 

My point remains: We have the Activists insisting they know what's best for everyone and the Passivists saying "Sod off and leave me alone!".

As the Activists apply more and more coercion, the Passivists will get more annoyed with them.

 

17 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

makes large parts of the world uninhabitable so that people are forced to migrate to those bits of land that are still habitable.

Activists threatening Passivists with increased immigration for non-compliance is just another form of coercion.

I'd be cautious about normalising coercion in politics, even if it is "for the greater good.".

[lol-lol]

5 minutes ago, Winston_Woof said:

a remake of Mad Max with EVs just wouldn't be the same ;o)

 

Duck guts. 2 0 0.  Two being the duck and guts, two zeros.......

 

 

[lol-lol]

3 minutes ago, EnterName said:

 

The environmental argument doesn't hold water for me. That "global boiling" nonsense if strictly for the kids. I'm old enough to have seen climate alarmism for decades.

Example:

I've gone through the CO2 maths before (probably on this thread, but certainly somewhere on Brisky). Even if the UK stopped ALL CO2 emission (assuming CO2 reduction is desirable, and I'm not convinced it is) then it would have next to no effect on global CO2. The models are always garbage because they are simply not sophisticated enough to cope with all the variables that have an effect.

 

My point remains: We have the Activists insisting they know what's best for everyone and the Passivists saying "Sod off and leave me alone!".

As the Activists apply more and more coercion, the Passivists will get more annoyed with them.

 

Activists threatening Passivists with increased immigration for non-compliance is just another form of coercion.

I'd be cautious about normalising coercion in politics, even if it is "for the greater good.".

 

 

[lol-lol]

16 minutes ago, EnterName said:

 

The environmental argument doesn't hold water for me. That "global boiling" nonsense if strictly for the kids. I'm old enough to have seen climate alarmism for decades.

Example:

I've gone through the CO2 maths before (probably on this thread, but certainly somewhere on Brisky). Even if the UK stopped ALL CO2 emission (assuming CO2 reduction is desirable, and I'm not convinced it is) then it would have next to no effect on global CO2. The models are always garbage because they are simply not sophisticated enough to cope with all the variables that have an effect.

 

My point remains: We have the Activists insisting they know what's best for everyone and the Passivists saying "Sod off and leave me alone!".

As the Activists apply more and more coercion, the Passivists will get more annoyed with them.

 

Activists threatening Passivists with increased immigration for non-compliance is just another form of coercion.

I'd be cautious about normalising coercion in politics, even if it is "for the greater good.".

 

If you knew your climate modelling you would know that the South polar region is far more important the the North polar region. South polar seeing record least amount of ice...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151692/exceptionally-low-antarctic-sea-ice#:~:text=Prior to 2014%2C ice surrounding,%2C 2022%2C and now 2023.

 

As the Northern polar region goes at least I can get my ships from Far East to Europe without having to go around the southern tip of Africa.  As the South pole de ices we are all in big trouble with sea level ie ports and coastal areas, the Thames estuary, East Anglia, much of Somerset.  At least the Hawthorns football ground will be OK. Boing boing.

 

Edited 25 February by lol-lol

[Graham Butcher]

36 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

But they can run on sun shine, or wind, or tidal. Some forms of these energies can be produced at home or by renewable companies like Octopus or Gridserve and many others.

 

The liquid hydrocarbon, or hydrocarbon gas, has to be released from wells in the ground, North Sea, Russia, Saudi or where ever, refined and then sold from a few thousand specialist outlets ie fuel stations, by massive conglomerates, who oft make obscene profits, and vehicles who use this liquid rarely hold enough of this liquid to do more than 1000 kms.  When shortages occur drivers of ICE vehicles go nuts.

 

EV owners just go home or two a public charging station and charge up as the electricity comes from massively diverse sources so that if one is on short supply the Grid switches to another.  I have an ICE car and a feel better when it is sat on the drive with 550 miles range but happier with the EV which only has 240 miles of range but there are numerous ways I can refill it to keep it running not only tomorrow but next week, month, year etc. 

 

EVs are just so much more versatile in their energy acquiring plus the battery, as I said, acts not just a energy store but a thermal one as well in advanced EVs.

It is like comparing dinosaurs/reptiles to mammals.  ICE cars cannot adapt (maybe other than switch to hydrogen) whereas EVs are infinitely more flexible as to where they get their energy from ie Grid, home, destination charging whilst eating, shopping.  No contest.  

 

Once again you are denying the truth, you have to get the solar, wind or tidal lecky into your flat battery, what's so hard to accept about that. Equally a empty tank could be refilled with synthetic fuel, bio fuel, home made diesel made from plastic bottles etc, waste cooking oil, but just like your EV, until that fuel reaches the tank, the ICE car is not going anywhere either. 😆

[skomaz]

54 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

ICE cars cannot adapt (maybe other than switch to hydrogen) whereas EVs are infinitely more flexible as to where they get their energy from ie Grid, home, destination charging whilst eating, shopping.  No contest.  

 

 

Hydrogen ICE will be equally flexible as to where the original energy soutce comes from - eg wind or tidal etc. - in fact most hydrogen manufacturing development is based around wind at the moment, being planned near new offshore wind farm incomers. 

[Stonekeeper]

34 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

If you knew your climate modelling you would know that the South polar region is far more important the the North polar region. South polar seeing record least amount of ice...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151692/exceptionally-low-antarctic-sea-ice#:~:text=Prior to 2014%2C ice surrounding,%2C 2022%2C and now 2023.

 

As the Northern polar region goes at least I can get my ships from Far East to Europe without having to go around the southern tip of Africa.  As the South pole de ices we are all in big trouble with sea level ie ports and coastal areas, the Thames estuary, East Anglia, much of Somerset.  At least the Hawthorns football ground will be OK. Boing boing.

 

 

Well it is Summer in the antarctic.

 

The recovery in Winter (September) is showing reductions are pretty flat?

 

Overall, the long-term trend in Antarctic sea ice is nearly flat. (in contrast, the glaciers and ice sheets over land in Antarctica are losing mass.) The satellite record spans more than four decades, and although the ice has shown increasing and decreasing trends over portions of that record, few of those trends have been statistically significant. Year-to-year variability has dominated, especially over the last decade. Since the year 2013, Antarctic sea ice has exhibited its highest and lowest extents in the entire record—the highest-ever winter maximum occurred in September 2014, and the lowest-ever summer minimum was in February 2023. But the overall trend, as of early 2023, is close to zero.

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent

 

 

[lol-lol]

4 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

Hydrogen ICE will be equally flexible as to where the original energy soutce comes from - eg wind or tidal etc. - in fact most hydrogen manufacturing development is based around wind at the moment, being planned near new offshore wind farm incomers. 

 

It has potential.  My biggest concern is that its control might be in the same hands as the hydrocarbon industry or maybe in the hands of the massive conglomerates of the gases industry whilst not being so bad as the HC industry the electric production and distribution industry, to me at least, look a more wholesome bunch of fellows, Elon Musk being the questionable one who sounds like he would quite happily zoom off to the moon or mars or wherever and leave the rest of us stewing in our overheating planet.

 

[Graham Butcher]

39 minutes ago, EnterName said:

 

The environmental argument doesn't hold water for me. That "global boiling" nonsense if strictly for the kids. I'm old enough to have seen climate alarmism for decades.

Example:

I've gone through the CO2 maths before (probably on this thread, but certainly somewhere on Brisky). Even if the UK stopped ALL CO2 emission (assuming CO2 reduction is desirable, and I'm not convinced it is) then it would have next to no effect on global CO2. The models are always garbage because they are simply not sophisticated enough to cope with all the variables that have an effect.

 

My point remains: We have the Activists insisting they know what's best for everyone and the Passivists saying "Sod off and leave me alone!".

As the Activists apply more and more coercion, the Passivists will get more annoyed with them.

 

Activists threatening Passivists with increased immigration for non-compliance is just another form of coercion.

I'd be cautious about normalising coercion in politics, even if it is "for the greater good.".

Like you, I've seen these scares before come and go, lived through droughts etc and recently someone presented some evidence that the river Thames actually ran through my home of Chelmsford and is now located some 25 miles south of it so it would all seem to be part of a natural cycle of events. 

 

Now if electric is the way forward then with all the so called free energy, solar, wind, tide etc surely the way to get most of us switching is to make the benefits obvious to us all by making the cars so affordable and the running costs almost none existent so the ICE owners and drivers want to be in on the action. 

 

Being forced to into the switch is not the way forward. Nobody ever made it compulsory to buy a petrol or diesel cars did they? It was a free choice, and so a free choice would be way to get people to dump fossil fuels for electric if they can see advantages in doing something, they will. 

 

It appears that the darling of solar power has had its bubble burst as there is growing claims that the solar panels themselves are far from being green are becoming a problem in their own right, so is there any real solution to the world's energy problems? 

[lol-lol]

7 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

 

Well it is Summer in the antarctic.

 

The recovery in Winter (September) is showing reductions are pretty flat?

 

Overall, the long-term trend in Antarctic sea ice is nearly flat. (in contrast, the glaciers and ice sheets over land in Antarctica are losing mass.) The satellite record spans more than four decades, and although the ice has shown increasing and decreasing trends over portions of that record, few of those trends have been statistically significant. Year-to-year variability has dominated, especially over the last decade. Since the year 2013, Antarctic sea ice has exhibited its highest and lowest extents in the entire record—the highest-ever winter maximum occurred in September 2014, and the lowest-ever summer minimum was in February 2023. But the overall trend, as of early 2023, is close to zero.

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent

 

 

 

This graph does not worry you then ?

If it is not ice then it is in the sea and that is a problem. Unless you are Aquaman.

 

 

[Stonekeeper]

All depends upon how you label the Axis?

 

 

There are reasons why these topics come up in our Winter.

 

To make people fear because the ice is melting whilst we are cold.

[wyx087]

11 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

I looked at it as a whole, a means of transporting people from point A to point B, electric motor is comparable to ICE engine, EV battery is therefore comparable to Fuel tank on ICE.

That's if you completely ignore other uses of the battery: V2H, V2L and powering AC without poisoning surrounding, etc.

 

Moving the car is a very boring feature of EV. People ask about my EV's and I like talking about the Nissan Leaf way more due to its V2H capabilities.

 

12 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Now surely you are not seriously suggesting for a single minute that batteries are going to last the lifetime of the car because that currently is just not going to happen.

What makes you say that?

 

I would go as far as say it is widely accepted that EV batteries will out last the car and have second life as stationary battery. My sources:

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/charging/how-long-do-electric-car-batteries-last/

Quote

For all intents and purposes, the lifespan of EV batteries and therefore the useful ‘first-life’ of an EV itself is broadly comparable to that of a traditional combustion car. 

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/advice-electric-cars/how-long-do-batteries-last-electric-cars

Quote

Generally, electric car batteries last for as long as the rest of the car. But like with your phone or laptop battery, they degrade over time. Ultimately the cells should still be providing at least 70 percent of their capacity even after 200,000 miles, which is the sort of mileage that few cars ever reach, whether they’re ICE or EV.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/what-happens-old-electric-car-batteries

Quote

Today, most EV batteries have a life expectancy of 15 to 20 years within the car – and a second life beyond.

 

[wyx087]

2 hours ago, Rooted said:

I do wish that people not interested in stuff would sod off and not bother telling others how uninterested they are.   Or repeat crap gleaned from others not interested or anti.    I don't bother going on the internet and looking at people pro or anti vapes, pro smoking, or low sugar drinks.

Well said.

 

There's absolutely nothing forcing people one way or another for next 10 years here in UK.

 

There's a few climate change deniers here in this thread...... There's nothing wrong with that, it's your opinion whether you want to believe the scientific consensus or not. But just like activist/passivists talk, labelling self as being forced to do something, shoving your opinion down people's throat based on a mandate that might happen 10 years down the line, whilst based on today's infrastructure, is rather ionic. 

[Stonekeeper]

Those watching the ice need to also watch the  solar minimums and maximums

 

 

Is  this why 2030 was decided to reduce CO2 by to stop the temp going up by another degree.

 

"This discovery of double dynamo action in the Sun brought us a timely warning about the upcoming grand solar minimum 1, when solar magnetic field and its magnetic activity will be reduced by 70%. This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

 

 

But what this has to do with buying an EV or not i am not so sure.

 

I will buy one when i can afford it and it meets my needs.

[wyx087]

Also got to remember buying EV itself does not solve climate change, so talking about it is neither here or there. There's embedded carbon emission in the production of EV's. Only when lifecycle of the product is considered EV produces vastly less emission than ICE regardless of former's grid mix.

 

Private transport itself is also very selfish and continued usage would never make enough progress towards really solving climate change. But that idea is probably a step too far, is both unpopular and off topic in a car forum.

[Graham Butcher]

There are some posts here that I'd like to respond to but currently out shopping, well someone has to do it 😂. 

 

That said though this debate is good natured and long may it continue that way and it must make Colin happy as the forum is getting loads of visits so the advertisers are all getting excellent exposure. 

 

I must just say that currently with EV's being generally so much more expensive then ICE, they do generally tend to be owned by the more affluent people and yet is it not also true that it is also more likely to be the same people jetting off on holidays, or partaking of a cruise in carribean etc?? Makes you think? I'm not aware of any commercial airlines or cruise ships that are electric powered. I mean, I don't own my house, never been able to afford to buy a house, nor have I ever been able to afford a holiday overseas or indeed in the UK at a hotel, only ever having days out to seasides etc🤔

Edited 25 February by Graham Butcher

[EnterName]

2 hours ago, lol-lol said:

If you knew your climate modelling you would know that the South polar region is far more important the the North polar region. South polar seeing record least amount of ice...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151692/exceptionally-low-antarctic-sea-ice#:~:text=Prior to 2014%2C ice surrounding,%2C 2022%2C and now 2023.

I know next to nothing about climate modelling, as do most of the climate modellers, as far as I can tell.

I know they are very good at producing models which provide evidence which corresponds with the narrative that people pushing the climate scare narrative are willing to pay handsomely for.

Other accounts of what is going on are available, but as they don't align with the current narrative, (which seems to me to be more about global wealth redistribution than any genuine reaction to adverse climate conditions), so they don't get funding.

Here's one such example.

https://realclimatescience.com/#gsc.tab=0

 

If you're willing to repeat the current narrative, enthusiastically and convincingly, there's good money to be had for the canny, and at the very least, you won't get any bother from the "Activist" community online.

 

We saw exactly the same thing with the "Safe and effective" Activist community. Activists doing whatever it takes to get Passives to do what they're told.

Legislation, social pressure in public and online. Even the same sort of language, calling Passives "Denier!", as though disagreement was some sort of crime against humanity.

If the social pressure didn't work, then the righteous anger kicks in. 

(Some lunatic on here accused me of being a Vatnik, because I refuse to kowtow to their narrative on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. 🤣 That conflict is another example where the Activist types quickly changed their avatars to signal compliance with the agreed narrative that Ukraine should be supported, then lost interest as the value of social credit from compliance to that narrative dropped sharply. You don't see many Ukraine flags on Briskoda avatars these days, do you?)

 

As quickly as it starts, Activist support for "current thing" ends, and the social media avatars are changed to show compliance with the narrative on the next "current thing", once a consensus has been identified.

Kneeling for Black Lives Matter, once almost mandatory, suddenly became passé, and simply stopped, as the activists, like a murmeration of starlings, suddenly changed direction and went after the next current thing.

I wonder how many of the Activist community quietly deleted the online evidence of them taking a knee in support of Black Lives Matter?

It's not easy to do that when you're a prominent politician.

 

Some Passives seem to regard their refusal to comply just as virtuous as the Activists who rapidly comply do, but I think most Passives are just people who don't like being pushed around.

Personally, I'm happy for the Activists to kneel at the alter of consensus, and get themselves jabbed, masked, kneel for those they've wronged, and potter about quietly around in EVs or whatever. Go for it!

But I'm not about to join them until I'm convinced of their argument.

 

Edited 25 February by EnterName
Tidied up a bit