wyx087

"One of"...... Is there anyone else that's even remotely close on pricing? (with sub or Tesla vehicle) I've heard (not verified) Ionity with sub are said to be cheaper than petrol.

Very true. I view this as a slightly less painful "stick", almost as a "carrot", to get people to switch to EV's. The discount only brings it down to £13.5, very small 10% discount "carrot" compared to current price. I had paid £10 to register for the exemption up to last year, stopped due to Westminster no longer have extremely cheap EV parking. This year wife had a surgery slotted in rather suddenly so couldn't get exemption in place. So I paid the £15. oAll other times public transport is not only faster it's also less stressful. I personally think this kind of levy to deter people driving into zone 1 makes a lot of sense. TBH, I think a lot of the busiest streets/area should be predestinated by now.

Good news, the removal of the congestion charge exemption for EVs has been somewhat softened with the announcement of a 25% discount for electric vehicles (50% for electric vans) being reduced to 12.5% (and 25% for vans) in 2030. BBC NewsLondon Congestion Charge set to rise by 20% to £18 - BBC...The daily cost of driving in central London should rise by £3 to £18, Transport for London says.

Risk mitigation:

The Micra seems like a good replacement for Leaf local runabout in a few years time, second hand. Got to get wife to sit in one (or R5) to see how she likes it. Initial impression isn't good, Nissan hasn't brought enough of their design elements to the R5, feels like a R5 with restyled lights. I see there's a Dacia Spring in our area, a few roads away. Along with a super bright Wallbox charge point that shines like the sun in the night.

This kind of confusion easily happens. Key thing is keep it simple, only set one thing. But once problem is understood, it should be very reliable. To be clear, I'm not immune to charge point problems, my regular Indra unit also had problem not charging the car. Charge point connector had connection issues probably due to me stretching the cable to reach Leaf to do cell balancing. It was promptly replaced under warranty. But during problematic times, if I know I must put energy into the car for the next day, I'd revert to granny charger. My point is that the charging location (home) is 100% reliable, there are many things can be done to manage known failures when at home. So arriving 0% is no problem.

Home charging is 100% reliable, no roulette games required. If charge point stops working, there's always the granny charger.

"unless they can find ways to both reduce the volatility of these" liquid fuel. ;) Haha Is it the job of mean stream media to report on every single vehicle fire? If so, why aren't we seeing every single ICE car fires reported? As electrified vehicle become more and more normal, I would not expect every single fire event to be reported. It will end up similar to ICE vehicle fire reporting, only major incidents are reported. Is it "gagged", or just common sense?

Driving well over 6 hours with just 1 stop is quite a lot. Towards the end he could have done a 5min zap and dash, give those legs a stretch. No real hardship/anxiety other than self induced, for science. But with a rapid charge and not from 100% to 0%, it doesn't really tell us much about the car's battery health. To me, it only tells us that getting 150k+ on the odometer is a piece of cake for EV powertrain.

A new map for rapid charging hubs with more than 5 chargers: https://umap.osm.ch/en/map/ccs-charging-hub-locations_9709#6/53.963/-3.472

"Drop off only" "Off peak EV charging" I feel like those 2 are mutually exclusive. Not finding the price is least of your worries ;) I've been on jury service, so much of the whole thing is waiting for people/stuff. I finished a TV show on my phone sat in their waiting room. Amazing anything gets done.

Not saying you used the engine for your specific journey. It was well done and effectively showed your point, hence the "like". Just saying PHEV are best used as EV's whenever possible, only use the ICE part as backup when going beyond EV range.

Please, please, plug in and do as much as possible on electric. That's the whole point of the plug-in vehicle.

Always gotta try these things before putting down the money. I also found it very tight when sat in the showroom. But then I haven't driven many supermini sized cars. Good finishes inside though, may be that's why moto-journo like it so much.

Not forgetting today is a good day for renwable generation. During bad days, it could be 60% gas. But I totally agree, this linkage to global gas price is absolutely bonkers. I personally think, from what I've seen, zonal price will go towards fixing that. Long term, this is where batteries and electrification of everything make sense. I've talked about this many times in other thread. Where we (the nation) can install an excess amount of renewables sized for lowest weekly winter generation periods. (I'm no expert, I'm using diaster probability language for guessing and getting my point across) Plugged in EV, connected batteries and industry are then used to soak up the excess for almost nothing. Prices skyrocket during once a month or diaster level low generation. Supply & demand 101. Industries also pay vaiable pricing and they deal with occational spikes in price in their calculated way (buy storage or partial shutdown, they do their own business case calculations). Finding the grid solutions now should never be approached with early 1900's hub and spoke power station mentality. If renewables are not stable, then so shouldn't be the prices, simple.

Follow the science. I have no idea, it is not for me to decide. I also have no knowledge to decide this. For me, key is reduction of human impact. For example, passive houses. reduce, reuse, recycle. Electrification is key in reduce energy consumption for everything. Everything is just so efficient when starting with electricity.

Electrification includes everything, from car to self energy sufficient (solar and home battery) to heat pump. On a national level, that means decarbonise the grid, electric public transports, etc. Steel production can be electrified: (thus no longer need coal) Spectra by MHIThe three phases to green steel production | Spectra by MHIDecarbonizing steel is best done in phases, starting with optimizing existing plants before moving on to fully clean electric arc furnaces and hydrogen-based production. Concrete can also be made low carbon: https://2050-materials.com/blog/a-simple-guide-to-low-carbon-concrete/ https://www.concretecentre.com/Resources/Concrete-Compass/Low-Carbon-Concrete.aspx Let's try not making this thread pointless political definition. Who/What you/me/them are doesn't matter. The science is clear, action is needed now. No matter left/right/progressive/traditional, the only worthy discussion is how much action is needed.

Many of the benefits are easy to measure, but to provide measurable numbers is beyond my pay grade. Here are my stuff on my personal level: Cheaper energy: 300 kWh of electricity used at just 7p/kWh <= cheaper energy compared to people who didn't adopt electrification. Energy independence There was a powercut due to underground line failure last week. I went off-grid for that day until incident was reported to be fixed, zero disruption to me. If Spain power cut incident happened, I would have zero problem living off-grid for weeks in recent sunshine. And on a broader level: Jobs There will be many job opportunity created by push for net-zero, from energy sector to tech https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/green-jobs-creating-workforce-deliver-net-zero Technology leadership Innovations all areas will enable UK to sell the tech, creating value For example, here is a long list of innovate UK involved sustainable projects: https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/knowledge-centre/casestudy/?_sft_sector=sustainability Economic activities With innovation, comes economic gains In simple terms, this means GDP growth and money flowing in Health benefits Net zero tech such as BEV and heat pumps mean cleaner air at local level Rest of your post goes into your conspiracy theory. It does not dignify any response. But corporate greed and big oil spreading doubt (via a few individuals) are well documented, worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

The world is not divided into completely separate nations. People move around. Innovations gets collaborated and improved upon across boarders. UK's goal for net zero lines up with most other nations. UK has it in law by 2050. China has it in policy documents by 2060. https://zerotracker.net/ This is a global effort, always is. Concentrating on nations as though it is virtue-signalling is missing the point. With regard to what are the benefits: Cheaper energy Energy independence Jobs Technology leadership Economic activities Health benefits Just to name a few.

The article or paper didn't investigate the cause. In 2022, nearby (global scale) Hunga Tonga volcano had erupted. This causes localised short term cooling whilst increasing long term global warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami#Climate_and_atmospheric_impact Would be interesting to see result 2020-2030 in 5 years time. I bet it will still be net decrease.

It's indeed too late to stop it completely. Man-made CO2 is excessive and will create climate change was definitively known back in 1970's. It is unfortunately capitalist greed that caused intensive lobbying to create the "climate debate" as though scientific discoveries can be debated by general public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial But it's never too late to minimise damage. Every little helps :)

My objection is that your original question (argument) that whether UK has very little to do with climate change, by presenting 0.0092% as your reason to raise this question. The correct number to use in your question is: There is 100x magnitude of difference and makes your argument a lot less meaningful. Therefore, my reasoning is that you used the incorrect number. The number you got by deliberately asking the AI to calculate against total global CO2. As I said, to have any measurable impact on total global CO2 is beyond human technology capability by thousands if not millions of years. In effect, you are asking the impossible in order to make a sound argument for inaction. I think EV's are ready for mass adoption, replacing vast majority of vehicles. But gen-AI and heat pumps are not. Heat pump is very close, good for most system boiler replacements but still need to work on how to replace combi boiler. Current generative AI are great at very narrow specific set of things, it is not ready for critical thinking and constructing coherent arguments. Those 2 are precisely what you are trying to get it to do. Or not do, because your prompts are designed to make it echo your skewed views. For example, asking AI to produce calculation against total global CO2.

Seems sensible enough: The title, as always with youtube videos, are designed to be controversial. But the message is simple, be more sensible with messaging and innovate out of the problem. Can't argue with that. On decreasing funding. I think it's more of a numbers game than a problem. The $2+ trillion number may seem big, but considering fossil fuel industry subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022, $2+ trillion by 2100 is tiny and will be a much smaller slice of global GDP compared to current 7.1% for fossil fuel (assuming growth). https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281 This is the type of discussion I want to promote, not climate scepticism. Interesting @EnterName "liked" the video, does that mean you agree with the message? That man-made climate is real and we must act in response?

Great you are using AI to create a coherent argument, including doing basic maths. But I see no point in responding to AI slurp that is clearly prompted to generate your biases. By all means construct your own reasoning. And I've already responded to you here. Your whole reasoning is based on the incorrect number, generated by deliberately prompting AI to calculate that number. I am saying I don't agree with his opinions, just as you don't agree with my opinions. That's fine. I am also saying what you claim are facts are not facts in my response to your crib-sheet linked below. Without your counter points, I take it my reasoning for why those are not facts can be agreed? Therefore, I am saying I don't agree with his opinions. Plain and simple. "characteristically helpful" must be the biggest lie of this thread. I think you forgot the "un" in front because a few lines of sarcastic sentences per post and AI slurp seems to be all the responses you can muster most of the time. ;)

Isn't the point to minimise human-made CO2 emissions in order to have minimal impact on Earth's climate? The overall climate change over millenniums are inevitable. Quoting total atmospheric CO2 is basically saying human should have total control of Earth's climate.