The Historically Accurate EV discussion

[GORDON STREETER]

Spain with all the solar panels and wind turbines have only once in recent years got near to a complete independence of the normal fossil fuelled grid.
This thread could go on and on (hopefully) but I daren't mention waste recycling

[Paul D]

The quote in the earlier post about Gridserve electric forecourts is just the sort of thing I was talking about in my previous post: yet again, they perpetrate the myth that EVs are 'net zero-carbon'.

As I've already said, no EV can ever be zero-carbon while the bulk of the electricity needed to charge it is generated by burning fossil fuels - and, in this country, at least (and I suspect, most others too), that means most of it.

If advocates of the ICE came out saying that petrol engines are zero-carbon emitters, they would (rightly) be laughed out of the place. But advocates of the EV are saying just that when it simply isn't true and, seemingly, Joe Public is buying into it.

As for solar... well, you're having a laugh if you think that's ever going to provide more than a token amount in a climate like Britain's. We could cover every inch of spare countryside with solar panels here, and I doubt even that would get us to 10% of the current demand (pun intended!), never mind the increased demand in a future where all cars are electric.

And we can all argue about the 'science' all day long. Yes, we know that many scientists agree about the causes of climate change - but not all do. But even if you ignore that - how many times in the past have the scientists had it all wrong? The fact is, a lot of what they predict is based on speculation. It may be well researched, science based speculation, but speculation it remains. Why, just merely a few years ago petrol was demonised in favour of diesel, but lo and behold, just a year or two ago, they did a complete u-turn and decided that, actually guys, we got that one wrong - diesel's worse than petrol! And as has been alluded to, they're already, right now, on the verge of moving the goalposts yet again by telling us that, actually, the crap coming off our tyres and brakes is just as bad (maybe even worse) as what's coming out the exhaust!

I remember when I was a young kid at school, back then the 'scientists' all predicted that the planet would be out of fossil fuels anyway by the end of the century. But I'm talking about the last century! Yet here we are 20 years into a new one with no sign of fossil fuels running out anytime soon.

So excuse me if I don't have blind faith in what scientists tell us. That's not to say I think they're wrong - but I just don't necessarily accept they're right all of the time either.

I wonder how long it will be, after we've all switched to EVs, before the scientists 'discover' that being in close proximity to all those electro-magnetic fields, powerful motors and batteries, etc, is giving us brain cancer/making us go blind/deaf or whatever (insert ailment of choice here). I can see it coming, mark my words...

[midgetman]

Orwell pointed out that we all need someone to hate. He had it as a country, but it can just as easily be a virus - or a philosophy such as global warming. It could suit the political classes that we hate the ICE so we don't have capacity to hate the politicos themselves.

However that does assume that our politicians have the mental capacity to think up such a plan. I firmly believe in cock up not conspiracy.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Orwell pointed out that we all need someone to hate. He had it as a country, but it can just as easily be a virus - or a philosophy such as global warming. It could suit the political classes that we hate the ICE so we don't have capacity to hate the politicos themselves.

However that does assume that our politicians have the mental capacity to think up such a plan. I firmly believe in cock up not conspiracy.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

You are right that a lot of politicians do not have 2 brain cells to rub together , [ just think of who might have been Home Secretary if the last election had gone the other way ].
But there has been a concentrated effort to try to con the world into accepting the Global Warming scam .

Al Gore,s film , [ Inconvenient Truth ] was given a Nobel prize even though a UK High court proved it was a load of lies .

The BBC held a secret meeting , [ 28 Gate ] , where they decided not to allow any disagreement on their Global warming propaganda .

After every one of the Climate Change predictions by the IPCC & NASA has proved to be wrong , they have reverted to their 97% of scientists agree lies .https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...-is-100-wrong/

And now Wikipedia , [ which has never been very reliable anyway ], has tried to claim that anyone who disagrees with the Global Warming claim is not a proper Scientist .
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/...ut-of-history/

But the whole scam is so big & so much money is involved with so much concentrated propaganda that a lot of the people at the top know what is going on , & putting a lot of effort into trying to fool the general public .
Who , at the end of it , will always be the ones who pay for it all .

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

According to today's Times, the installation is being backed by a £4.9M Government grant, and is the first of 100 planned to be built over the next 5 years.........yes, a hell of an investment.........

The key to the future for almost all investment is to find something that the "Government" feels it has to pay for - especially if there is a "saving the planet" angle.

So it's not the commercial enterprises that are taking the full finance risk. They probably could not take it on even if they wanted to since backers would most likely be very wary of changes in policy especially in situations where policy and technology are not yet well established and probably will not be well established for some time.

Still, at least the poor consumer is not being left to decide what does and does not work for them and nor do they have to decide how to spend their earnings. The government will do that for them using the full weight of their wisdom and the "experience" of their advisors.

It's always interesting to use "experienced" advisors in areas that, by definition, are short of experiences.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

The BBC held a secret meeting , [ 28 Gate ] , where they decided not to allow any disagreement on their Global warming propaganda .

Clearly not a secret meeting then if you know about it and what was decided?

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Clearly not a secret meeting then if you know about it and what was decided?

The BBC spent £ tens of thousands to try to cover it up , & refused FOI requests . But a clever bloke found it on the Wayback Machine to uncover the facts .
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...op-executives/

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

The BBC spent £ tens of thousands to try to cover it up , & refused FOI requests . But a clever bloke found it on the Wayback Machine to uncover the facts .
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...op-executives/

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Quote " BBCs 6 year cover up of SECRET green propaganda training "

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...m=Ad%20hominem

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Quote " BBCs 6 year cover up of SECRET green propaganda training "

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...m=Ad%20hominem

It's not my head something's gone over.....

[midgetman]

Well all I know is......some twenty years ago I remember climate scientists saying we would have wilder, wetter and stormier winters. They weren't wrong were they?

All I know is that the Swedish Rally is no longer a snow rally.

That's not relying on opinion, dubious science or fake news. That's what I can see with my own eyes. Just as I can see the pall of smog over London every time I approach it - which thankfully isn't often these days and is probably why I notice it more than others here.

I appreciate that the planet s continuously evolving, but we've seen more change in the last twenty years than the previous several hundred. There must be some reason for that, or is it just coincidental that we have been pumping ever more muck into the air.

So argue and dispute what you like, but while my awning is battered by the third storm in three weekends and the Swedish Rally has stages cancelled due to lack of snow, I'll believe in my eyes and attribute it to what the vast majority of established science says rather than internet opinion, thank you.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Well all I know is......some twenty years ago I remember climate scientists saying we would have wilder, wetter and stormier winters. They weren't wrong were they?

All I know is that the Swedish Rally is no longer a snow rally.

That's not relying on opinion, dubious science or fake news. That's what I can see with my own eyes. Just as I can see the pall of smog over London every time I approach it - which thankfully isn't often these days and is probably why I notice it more than others here.

I appreciate that the planet s continuously evolving, but we've seen more change in the last twenty years than the previous several hundred. There must be some reason for that, or is it just coincidental that we have been pumping ever more muck into the air.

So argue and dispute what you like, but while my awning is battered by the third storm in three weekends and the Swedish Rally has stages cancelled due to lack of snow, I'll believe in my eyes and attribute it to what the vast majority of established science says rather than internet opinion, thank you.

People will believe what they want to believe .
Did you believe it when a scientist from the CRU said , [ about 15 years ago ,] that the kids in England would never see snow again .
https://notrickszone.com/2020/03/08/...evels-in-year/
Meteorological reports shows Northern hemisphere snow totals at greater amounts than 40 year average .

Did you believe it when they said the Arctic Sea ice would all be gone by 2008,2010,2012,2015, or 20250 . At present there is 15 million Square Kilometers up there .

Did you believe it when they said England would be hotter , colder , drier , wetter .
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/researc...ne-time-series
140 year chart showing averages of temp , rain , sun haven,t changed much.

And your "Vast Majority " of established science is only the small proportion of scientists who actually get reported in the news .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...-is-100-wrong/

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

And your "Vast Majority " of established science is only the small proportion of scientists who actually get reported in the news .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...-is-100-wrong/

Claims philosopher and pundit, who campaigns on theories with no scientific basis.

It also helps to understand the motives of a commentator when promoting their propaganda.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It also helps to understand the motives of a commentator when promoting their propaganda.

This is the problem. It is such an emotive subject that the possibility of a purely scientific discussion has gone out of the window. I mean any sensible person would never dream of listening to an autistic uneducated 16 year old schoolkid for international climate advice would they?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

This is the problem. It is such an emotive subject that the possibility of a purely scientific discussion has gone out of the window. I mean any sensible person would never dream of listening to an autistic uneducated 16 year old schoolkid for international climate advice would they?

No problem there Peter, she's not offering any advice just complaining about nothing being done. As the retiring head of JLR has recently pointed out.

Not her fault. The people advising her would surely use the platform to push their proposed workable solutions if they had any.

Maybe it's a long game and that part is still to come. They need more of the money men on their side to make it stick.

[Peter Mallett]

I disagree. She's pushing an agenda. That is offering advice albeit in different terms. She's saying, do what I say or else.

[Peter Mallett]

Oh and by my reckoning we missed saving the planet five years ago! Apparently we are no longer here.

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

https://notrickszone.com/2020/03/08/...evels-in-year/
Meteorological reports shows Northern hemisphere snow totals at greater amounts than 40 year average .

Well where the **** is it then? No snow here this year, just one or two days last year, and the year before that. In fact I've barely had to scrape ice from the car at all this winter. The Swedish Rally is no longer a snow event. Hardly any snow on the Monte except in the highest passes. Pictures from around the world show me ski lifts going up brown mountains, not white ones.

I can attest to the fact that winters are warmer, wetter and stormier because I'm out there in them, not relying on "scientific papers". I'm wearing lighter clothing than I did 20 years ago, and working harder to hold my awnings down than I did five years ago. You do the maths, as they say.

I'm not "believing" people, I'm observing and remembering what was said 20 years ago. I didn't believe it then, but they were right and I've changed my mind.

[S griffin]

We need the voices out there to make sure the right things are being done. That’s how I see it

[grantp]

Originally Posted by S griffin

We need the voices out there to make sure the right things are being done. That’s how I see it

So what are the right things and how do you know who will promote them?

[S griffin]

We need to protect this planet and it’s important people speak out about it so people listen

[grantp]

Originally Posted by S griffin

We need to protect this planet and it’s important people speak out about it so people listen

And your rationale is what given the long term "history" of the planet as we currently understand it from our extremely short occupation?

[grantp]

Another part of the history of EVs.


It seems remarkable that this was apparently a development in Holland in 1943 and offered 100km range.


This short video has some extremely interesting wider implications to consider.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1232216952548052992

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by grantp

Another part of the history of EVs.


It seems remarkable that this was apparently a development in Holland in 1943 and offered 100km range.


This short video has some extremely interesting wider implications to consider.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1232216952548052992

While I have doubts about the date of that link , [ the war was still on & Holland was still occupied ,] early EVs did have the same sort of range as todays EVs .
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010...ame-range.html
Basic law of Physics . Early EVs were much slower , so the energy used was less for the same mileage .
A lot of todays EVs use the EPA City test figures , which are done at an average speed of under 20 MPH , which is why they do 20% to 30% less miles than the manufacturers claimed figures .

And until somebody invents a new MAGIC battery material , which has a much higher energy density than any of the known elements on this planet , the range of battery powered cars is not going to increase by much .

[crmalcolm]