wyx087

Graph selectively presented can really tell a story isn't it. You've selected change over time, with baseline being almost 0, of course today's number decided by almost 0 will be huge. This is the default display for per capita CO2. Adding UK per capita gives this. Of course, it's ever increasing and that is not good. But UK has had worse emission for far longer time period, total emission (area under the graph) is far higher. From 1900 (start of industrial revolution) to 2100, over that 200 year time period, you can bet total per-capita emission (area under the graph) of China will be lower than UK. Technology is ever improving, we in UK have the capital to invest in low carbon and we can be the innovators. Graphs like what you've presented is often pushed across by rich western countries to say how well they are doing. But the reality is that the developed countries have polluted far worse and are trying to push developing countries to stop emission. From economic point of view this is indirect imperialism and oppression, stopping developing countries from establishing industries.

Something shiny on my wall:

Well put. you are both right, not 100% of climate change is man made, that was my mistake to write in such a way. I went in too hard to counter the NOAA article. But my problem is that NOAA talked about this minor natural climate change in an unbalanced way, for example wordings (I know not your words) like these will only fuel climate denier further and delay action. It is irresponsible of NOAA to end an article in such a way. Messaging need to be crystal clear: man-made climate change is the majority cause behind rapid temperature growth and we must do something about it ASAP.

Indeed, it's clear we view the problem differently as evident by the way you've put this: As referenced above, there is an overwhelming majority consensus, through many peer review papers written by many experts in their respective fields, that climate change is man-made. Problem happens when doubts are cast on man-made climate change by individuals without going through the proven scientific peer-review methods, it end up changing minds of non-scientific community (aka general public). This is the definition of mis-information.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/ It's not natural CO2 cycle either: https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/ https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change So once again, what can we do about it? Keep arguing against scientific consensus, as keyboard worriers? Keep arguing against policy makers because "freedom"? Or heads down and solve the underlying issue, and from consumer point of view vote with wallets.

Very good, and what are your thoughts on what we should do about it?

Good highlight on second article: There is 0.1c increase between solar max and solar min. But we are over 1c above 1900, start of industrial revolution.

Then why is it morally questionable to take advantage of cheaper, greener charging during off-peak and pocket the difference? It is functionally the same thing as paying less BIK, paying less tax for the new bicycle. Just playing devil's advocate, I personally agree with your view. (correction above, meant to say 0 VED for EV)

That's excellent unit rates. 6.7p beating Octopus at 7p and also having it for 7 hours. Obviously different part of country so day rate and gas are difficult to compare. The off-peak rates are fixed by the energy supplier as headline numbers to attract customers.

Same can be asked about 0 VAT for EV's, BIK. or 0% VAT for home battery install. or even the cycle to work scheme. If you don't like the rules, work with your MP to get it changed. As the saying goes: don't hate the player hate the game.

Indeed, but then how would you set the policy? Distinguishing home charging vs public charging? An offset based on electricity paid (eg. 20p + fuel cost)? That disincentives people to install home chargers and charge overnight. Also home charging billing is difficult to work out if finances are going to be based on a non-calibrated home charge point reading. I honestly agree with your view on the disparity, but no idea how to solve this without removing incentives to get people to charge during off-peak times and make their EV be an asset to the grid, acting as load balancing devices.

It's the same for petrol/diesel is it not? The money claimed back is always more than actual spent on fuel alone. Are you advocating for the same to be applied to petrol/diesel? If not, why not? We all know there's other associated cost running petrol/diesel, namely expensive servicing requirements. I believe by capping the money to actual fuel spent may be more detrimental to those running petrol/diesel. Only difference here is lol was able to take advantage of cheaper home charging. Something cannot be done with petrol/diesel/hydrogen. If that 60 kWh were charged on public charger, at 79p/kWh, it could be as much as £47.40. Now that £50 claimed back is pretty reasonable.

Well, just because the fuel is effectively free does mean burning it is problem free. Adding carbon capture will only push up the cost, I personally suspect there is a high likelihood pushing to beyond economical without government subsidies, judging by current carbon capture costs. The level of per unit energy emission from it means it is extremely far from free in my books, in its current form.

Very good to bring this into attention. There's 2 thing at play here: the amount of rubbish being produced and the need for cleaner energy. The former is the real problem, and as you mentioned, if there is any method to "filtering" the emission, it solves both problems. But I guess we can also go back to questioning if we could reduce the amount of rubbish we produce in the first place or recycle more of it etc. The latter can be easily solved with other forms of energy generation. The power generation is somewhat incidental to the decision to incinerate the rubbish.

Thanks, yes it is a concern for stored DHW. This is regularly mentioned for heat pump water tanks, so I'm well aware. It is only for stored hot water that stays unused for days. It is acceptable to have ~50c water in the hot water tank + heat cycle to kill off germs once a week if the tank gets refreshed every day. (correctly sized tank) Legionella isn't a concern for combi boiler or heat storage device such as Heat Geek mini (https://newarkcylinders.co.uk/heatgeekministore/) or zero-emission boiler (ZEB: https://www.tepeo.com/the-zeb/). Water is constantly moving throughout the system and there's no water storage. The heat geek mini is very new, it is sized as combi replacement (with an outside heat pump). I'm really interested in it as I no longer have the space for the 200 L DHW tank required by the BUS grant. As mentioned in the hydrogen ladder webpage, UK boiler install are often not done correctly. There is a lot of myths and typical install oversize the boiler without heat loss measurement because there is no penalty with gas boilers and people don't complain when rooms heat up very fast. This mindset of not doing measurements and oversizing must change for heat pumps to succeed like they do in Norway/Sweden.

It's a modern condensing combi boiler (about 12-15 years old though, hence researching heat pump for replacing it between it before 20 years old). I'm hoping to get the boiler upgrade scheme (BUS). I can independently set flow temperature for central heating and hot water. 2 dials one for each, display shows precise temperature that has been set. Hot water I've set at 50c and it's more than hot enough for me. Not sure whether it goes through the condensing part. Yes, 45c is a bit low by the time it gets to upstairs shower and wife prefers scorching hot showers. (I may have tried at 45c ) Central heating does go through the condensing part, so the lower temperature the higher efficiency. Just like heat pumps.

There are places for hydrogen, but most of which are more suited for electricity/batteries: https://www.liebreich.com/the-clean-hydrogen-ladder-now-updated-to-v4-1/ This source has a very clear "register of interest" page, on it there is multiple fuel cell investments. The Bio page shows an impressive broad spread of knowledge and recognition. I would like to think he knows what he's talking about. For cars, he wrote: For domestic heating, he wrote: Came up when I was looking at heat pumps. I'm experimenting with 45c flow temperature this winter (down from 50c last winter). So far with 4c outside yesterday it still warmed up the house nicely and more than quick enough. With last part of heat pump quote, I've heard of this concept before. Where the whole house can be considered a thermal storage. Can use it to store (eg. 1c higher to 0.5c below) energy and running heat pump smartly to help match demand to supply. Octopus Cozy tariff is similar concept, applied dumbly using variable time of use tariff pricing. https://octopus.energy/smart/cosy-octopus

By registering 78 more ICE vehicles, VAG would need to sell 22 more EV's to meet the mandate quota. How would creating artificial demand for ICE Skoda support your narrative that EV's don't sell? If that were the case, what incentive is there to allow register more ICE than necessary from a manufacturer point of view? The reason is usually due to dealership needing to hit certain targets. Let's not use a single sighting of a single dealership to speculate and insert narratives.

No body pays list price, etc. But it's still worth noting that we have reached price parity on list price: https://electrek.co/2024/10/13/price-parity-is-here-new-stellantis-crossover-is-the-same-price-ev-or-ice/?

I think it's worth doing a comparison between those highlighted areas and petrol station or population density. The one I found doesn't feel like showing everything: https://www.fuelgenie.co.uk/fuel-cards-uk-locations/find-nearest-petrol-station/ (1) Highlands, (2) north Yorkshire and (3) middle of wales are known to be sparse to begin with. Also remember how much distance is that area with sparse charging. 2 and 3 are certainly very manageable without charging. But (1) Highlands is very big and CPS is not fit for purpose. For number 4, this is zoomed in compared against Cornwall which looked packed in Lucky's map. The zoomed in maps look very similar in density to my eye. I have noticed this before, it doesn't load properly to that area until zoomed in. It's a bug with Electroverse map. As always, it's worth going to source and check for yourself.

Following on from my earlier post on government ZEV policy. This video talks about "positive tipping points" which are things like ZEV adoption. But starting from my shared starting point, the presenter talks about inevitable negative impacts of any social change. The question is, who gets to decide how policies are set to push towards / pull away from certain change? The answer is net benefit. Which change produces the most net benefit for everyone.

Very quick search "infrastructure" in this thread:

Not USA, not Japan, not China to my knowledge. I don't think India did as well. Diesel were only push as lower carbon emitting alternatives in Europe, which is true on that single metric. Guess where are the diesel engine factories and which country's car manufacturer invested the most in diesel tech? On the other hand, ZEV (of which BEV is currently the only widely available option) is pushed by more governments across the world. USA differs by states: https://www.worktruckonline.com/10214784/which-states-have-zero-emission-vehicle-mandates Others: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/policy-developments Japan, without BEV knowledge and said "hydrogen in 10 years" for the last 10 years: https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/exclusive-japan-pushes-remove-zero-emission-vehicle-target-g7-statement-draft-2022-06-27/ This feels like a repeat of diesel push in Europe. What you say is what engine manufacturer (aka established car manufacturers) say. They have a clear vested interest to slow down ZEV adoption. Only by setting a hard target that is in the public eye, manufacturers cannot lobby the governments into the same situation that was diesel push in Europe.

Charging another EV is entirely possible if vehicle can do V2L (vehicle-to-load). Most of S-Korean cars and Chinese cars can do this. https://electriccarguide.co.uk/what-is-vehicle-to-load-v2l/ Just like fuel preparation for ICE, people would have either fled or prepared by topping up their energy reserves. I personally think you are overly melodramatic. Tesla powerwall have storm watch built-in: This is in the middle of storm's path, right now, some superchargers are still online: Escaping from St Petersburg (directly in storm's path) towards mainland to largest city with normal condition is less than 300 miles away, many supercharger are online once out of worst area:

Filter by faster than 75kW, 6 or more charge points at each location: If I were driving towards Cornwall, I'd top up here, 32 superchargers. That's 200 miles from North London, almost 4 hours driving with usual traffic like now. 123 miles from Land's End, meaning 1 top up plenty to explore Cornwall. https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/findus?v=2&bounds=51.88238755378513%2C-2.461971635972955%2C49.59910076013977%2C-6.021541948472954&zoom=9&filters=supercharger%2Cparty%2Cnacs&location=9795 5 more hubs further in Cornwall, 8 or more at each location and others are open to all cars. Looks pretty much guaranteed no queue from historical data: