1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

The argument was concluded several years ago and actions to economical transition to electric set in motion in the last decade.

 

Been some guff about tyre particles which I think need full investigating and reporting. Would like to see the ENSO tyres fully launched to further range and lower consumption of all road vehicles.

 

Hmm, just as the argument was concluded several years ago before that and steps taken to transition to diesel, see any similarities here?

 

Surely the ENSO tyres would a bad move really, given how you go on about how EVs can out accelerate ICE cars and in some cases are even heavier, you want more grip from the tyres to control that extra grunt the electric motor delivers, ENSO certainly would be the Achilles heel to getting that extra grip? 

Edited 10 January, 20251 yr by Graham Butcher

2 hours ago, lol-lol said:

Nox is the bigger issue these days as the local pollution consequences are classified as the big killer.

CO2 is causing the climate change that is expected to kill millions due to flooding.

Well, this link European emission standards - Wikipedia will show just how much advances have been made cleaning up ICE vehicles and as mentioned before, if there was not a ban coming up on producing ICE vehicles, these advancements would continue at a pace, but no manufacturer is going to spaff £billions on further research on a dead in the water system unless there is reversal of government policy.

 

It is also worth noting that you say that it is CO2 that the cause of global warming or climate change that is expected to kill millions due to flooding and yet petrol vehicles produce twice the amount that diesels do, so continuing pushing diesels would dramatically cut climate change and save millions of lives, and retain the speed and sheer convenience of refuelling a car to a full tank and maximum range in minutes without having to invest £billions in bolstering the national grid and increasing generation ability. 

 

The graphs extracted from that link, shown below also illustrate just how much has been achieved since 1993 in just 31 years, the CO2 and PM and NOX levels are almost none existent on todays engines and no reason not to believe that the same kind of pace would continue if it were not for the looming ban. It makes me and a lot of other people wonder if there is another possible reason behind the policy.

 

 

 

 

Edited 10 January, 20251 yr by Graham Butcher

World leaders are not caring what so random person in the UK thinks is relevant. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

and yet petrol vehicles produce twice the amount [of CO2] that diesels do

Only if you are talking about roughly twice as many petrol vehicles as diesels. The difference is significant, but nowhere near that big.

 

6 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

in just 31 years, the CO2 and PM and NOX levels are almost none existent

I guess you mean CO.

6 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

It is also worth noting that you say that it is CO2 that the cause of global warming or climate change that is expected to kill millions due to flooding and yet petrol vehicles produce twice the amount that diesels do, so continuing pushing diesels would dramatically cut climate change and save millions of lives, and retain the speed and sheer convenience of refuelling a car to a full tank and maximum range in minutes without having to invest £billions in bolstering the national grid and increasing generation ability. 

Based on that single metric (CO2), diesel as pushed for the public to adopt, and many did.

But local pollutant NOx emission remains high and that is a major contributing factor for diesel's decline.

 

On grid, EV does not require billions invested and does not require much increased generation capacity even if all cars were EV overnight. 

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions

Quote

2. Do the electricity grid's wires have enough capacity for charging EVs?

The simple answer is yes. The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent years was 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency.

Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle.

 

Most of grid investments are for bringing online more and more renewables in different areas than traditional power plants.

 

Also, plugged in EV provides capability for increased grid stability by soaking up any excess renewables.

EV and batteries are the special sauce for more renewable generation from grid perspective.

No, I mean NOX and also PMs look at the charts, CO2 figures are on the link, but have also fallen since 1993.

Edited 10 January, 20251 yr by Graham Butcher

9 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

I was aware of those in the last century, any significant this century ?

 

 

We were aware of electric vehicles in the late 19 century...   But some things we were aware of then have only recently come to market...   Motor in wheel for example...

 

Any examples of new EV technology other than ongoing battery improvements?

@Graham Butcher   What do you actually want, just everything as it is or back to what it was?

Can you not just carry on as you were surely as far as the world allows you to. 

10 hours ago, lol-lol said:

The argument was concluded several years ago and actions to economical transition to electric set in motion in the last decade.

"The science is settled!" 2025 remix.

The "economical transition to electric" has been anything but.

Instead, it was decided by people in positions that allowed them to make it happen, that there was a lot of money to be made by creating a whole new industry based around "climate change". And so it was made to happen, and billions have been made by the people who were in positions of power to force their agenda onto the rest of us.

People cheering it on are either making money out of it themselves, or are IMO just NPCs in support of whatever current thing the media is telling them to support/oppose.

 

I'll remind you the war in Ukraine is still killing thousands of people, but as it's no longer the fashionable thing to virtue-signal about, all the people who added a Ukraine flag to the avatar image, or signed off virtue-signalling posts with a "Slava Ukraini!" have moved on to today's "current thing", though most are still obediently refer to Kiev as Kyiv, because solidarity(!)

 

Edited 10 January, 20251 yr by EnterName
Duplicate posts removed

16 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

We were aware of electric vehicles in the late 19 century...   But some things we were aware of then have only recently come to market...   Motor in wheel for example...

 

Any examples of new EV technology other than ongoing battery improvements?

 

A part from the quantum leaps in energy density and the massive drops in cost per kWh their have been several other factors.

 

Lithium NMC have been round for a long time but recently the mass producing at even lower prices of Lithium Iron Phoshate, LFP, and whilst it energy continues to lag lithium NMC it has several advantages in that it is happy to charge to 100% every time and even when punctured it does not start thermal runaway.

 

As I as said these improvement are happening several percent per year, up for energy density and down for cost even with inflation.

 

Now we have sodium batteries coming on to market with even lower prices and with better ie less affected battery performance in very low temperature of the degree of -5c to -40c and below. The march of improvement is changeable with EV prices falling but performance getting remarkably better, 400 mile range cars last year and costs dropping by 10% or so on benchmark EVs.

 

6 minutes ago, EnterName said:

"The science is settled!" 2025 remix.

The "economical transition to electric" has been anything but.

Instead, it was decided by people in positions that allowed them to make it happen, that there was a lot of money to be made by creating a whole new industry based around "climate change". And so it was made to happen, and billions have been made by the people who were in positions of power to force their agenda onto the rest of us.

People cheering it on are either making money out of it themselves, or are IMO just NPCs in support of whatever current thing the media is telling them to support/oppose.

 

I'll remind you the war in Ukraine is still killing thousands of people, but as it's no longer the fashionable thing to virtue-signal about, all the people who added a Ukraine flag to the avatar image, or signed off virtue-signalling posts with a "Slava Ukraini!" have moved on to today's "current thing", though most are still obediently refer to Kiev as Kyiv, because solidarity(!)

"The science is settled!" 2025 remix.

The "economical transition to electric" has been anything but.

Instead, it was decided by people in positions that allowed them to make it happen, that there was a lot of money to be made by creating a whole new industry based around "climate change". And so it was made to happen, and billions have been made by the people who were in positions of power to force their agenda onto the rest of us.

People cheering it on are either making money out of it themselves, or are IMO just NPCs in support of whatever current thing the media is telling them to support/oppose.

 

I'll remind you the war in Ukraine is still killing thousands of people, but as it's no longer the fashionable thing to virtue-signal about, all the people who added a Ukraine flag to the avatar image, or signed off virtue-signalling posts with a "Slava Ukraini!" have moved on to today's "current thing", though most are still obediently refer to Kiev as Kyiv, because solidarity(!)

"The science is settled!" 2025 remix.

The "economical transition to electric" has been anything but.

Instead, it was decided by people in positions that allowed them to make it happen, that there was a lot of money to be made by creating a whole new industry based around "climate change". And so it was made to happen, and billions have been made by the people who were in positions of power to force their agenda onto the rest of us.

People cheering it on are either making money out of it themselves, or are IMO just NPCs in support of whatever current thing the media is telling them to support/oppose.

 

I'll remind you the war in Ukraine is still killing thousands of people, but as it's no longer the fashionable thing to virtue-signal about, all the people who added a Ukraine flag to the avatar image, or signed off virtue-signalling posts with a "Slava Ukraini!" have moved on to today's "current thing", though most are still obediently refer to Kiev as Kyiv, because solidarity(!)

 

Rinse and repeat.

 

8 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Well, this link European emission standards - Wikipedia will show just how much advances have been made cleaning up ICE vehicles and as mentioned before, if there was not a ban coming up on producing ICE vehicles, these advancements would continue at a pace, but no manufacturer is going to spaff £billions on further research on a dead in the water system unless there is reversal of government policy.

 

It is also worth noting that you say that it is CO2 that the cause of global warming or climate change that is expected to kill millions due to flooding and yet petrol vehicles produce twice the amount that diesels do, so continuing pushing diesels would dramatically cut climate change and save millions of lives, and retain the speed and sheer convenience of refuelling a car to a full tank and maximum range in minutes without having to invest £billions in bolstering the national grid and increasing generation ability. 

 

The graphs extracted from that link, shown below also illustrate just how much has been achieved since 1993 in just 31 years, the CO2 and PM and NOX levels are almost none existent on todays engines and no reason not to believe that the same kind of pace would continue if it were not for the looming ban. It makes me and a lot of other people wonder if there is another possible reason behind the policy.

 

 

 

 

 

This is the standard expected, or was a decade or so ago.

 

EURO6 is the current standard. anything less for diesel and on get whacked for emissions charges in London and other cities if not barred completely.

 

Problem was and is whilst cars would achieve the prescribed emission levels on the rolling road in the test lab they were failing by up to seven times the levels they should be. Colder air, cold casing of the catalytic converter with it not reaching temperature to change HC, Nox to No2 etc. 

 

ICE will be subject EURO6a BIS shortly and EURO7 shortly after that and it is much tighter and if ICE cars continue to fail the level out on the road which they manage in the lab test then even more sensors and costs are clearly needed to make the vehicles adhere to the levels ie severe restrictions in performance until engine is up to temp and the exhaust gas processing sub system is doing its job. Expensive.

 

Meanwhile EVs just keep getting  cheap, almost no brake dust due to regen and only the common issue of tyre debris.

 

Edited 10 January, 20251 yr by lol-lol

14 hours ago, lol-lol said:

ICE technology has stagnated and ICE vehicles only moving forward in term of their performance as the electric hybrid systems enhancement the ice powertrain.

 

EV systems are improving at around 5% per annum in energy density but also falling about 25% in battery cost.

 

No contest.

 

 

Hardly surprising considering ICE technology has been around so much longer and most manufacturers are putting most of their investment into EV technology.

The main question is how much further and how fast battery technology can improve. 5% improvement per annum in energy density is hardly that exciting when ICE is so far ahead.

A typical Skoda Superb weighs at least 200kg less than a Tesla Model 3 (and is not insignificantly larger). With 200kg of extra fuel on board it would have a range of about 4000 miles.

 

No contest.

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

Rinse and repeat.

 

No idea what happened to get that repeating. 🤷‍♂️

I refreshed the window, but that lot didn't appear when I was posting.

Still, the point is worth repeating. 😋

1 hour ago, Ootohere said:

@Graham Butcher   What do you actually want, just everything as it is or back to what it was?

Can you not just carry on as you were surely as far as the world allows you to. 

Strangely enough that is exactly what I'm doing. I would like to see this current madness about electrifaction stop and leave it up to people's personal choice and the market. 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

"The science is settled!" 2025 remix.

The "economical transition to electric" has been anything but.

Instead, it was decided by people in positions that allowed them to make it happen, that there was a lot of money to be made by creating a whole new industry based around "climate change". And so it was made to happen, and billions have been made by the people who were in positions of power to force their agenda onto the rest of us.

People cheering it on are either making money out of it themselves, or are IMO just NPCs in support of whatever current thing the media is telling them to support/oppose.

The man made climate change is real, this has been settled years ago.

 

In order to keep man made climate change under control, transition to electric is required, we cannot continue to burn stuff.

 

Whether you like it or not, we (human) have done too much damage and cannot continue to live in such way. This may require government intervention to push a change for people who don't like changes.

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

A part from the quantum leaps in energy density and the massive drops in cost per kWh their have been several other factors.

 

Lithium NMC have been round for a long time but recently the mass producing at even lower prices of Lithium Iron Phoshate, LFP, and whilst it energy continues to lag lithium NMC it has several advantages in that it is happy to charge to 100% every time and even when punctured it does not start thermal runaway.

 

As I as said these improvement are happening several percent per year, up for energy density and down for cost even with inflation.

 

Now we have sodium batteries coming on to market with even lower prices and with better ie less affected battery performance in very low temperature of the degree of -5c to -40c and below. The march of improvement is changeable with EV prices falling but performance getting remarkably better, 400 mile range cars last year and costs dropping by 10% or so on benchmark EVs.

 

 

So the same sort of incremental advances that ICE have been making...

'If you want to get ahead get a hat'.   The drama of it all.

 

Should he be taking out your car if it can not get places where there is snow on the ground like maybe a car park?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 10 January, 20251 yr by Ootohere

 

4 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

 

 

Yes but TESLA has Elon Musk profiteering from it, for that reason I'm out.

 

Might grab a few kws out of a TESLA superchargers if desperate, that's my limitation of involvement with the looney.

 

 

No smoke without fire, if this is true, we could be caught out big time, or is it BS?

 

One thing it does do is make you think and perhaps makes us realise just how close we could be sailing to trouble.

 

 

 

 

http://gridwatch.co.uk

 

http://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland

 

 

 

The Government like to speak about 'This Country' as do the Media.

 

So as long as it is England and not Scotland , Wales or Northern Ireland that gets Blacked Out if it can not buy in enough gas to generate electricity.

 

Just as well the weather is away to be hotter this week and when winter weather hits again it might not be England cold for 1 week.

?

How much energy has England needed per capita in this past week compared to the Rest of the UK?

 

North Sea Oil & Gas is not a cheap product for the UK to buy in.

We all pay a lot for clearing up nuclear and to build the new nuclear plants which are in England.

No knew nuclear in Scotland and the one nuclear power station in Scotland might see the next 5 years its life is extended and then EDF will not pay for the clean up. 

Edited 12 January, 20251 yr by Ootohere

On 10/01/2025 at 11:09, wyx087 said:

The man made climate change is real, this has been settled years ago.

No, the narrative was set out years ago and dissent ruthlessly suppressed.

 

On 10/01/2025 at 11:09, wyx087 said:

In order to keep man made climate change under control, transition to electric is required, we cannot continue to burn stuff.

"We"? The 70 million people in the UK? Infinitely less of a problem than the 1.4 billion people in China? It's like sweeping the deck of the titanic instead of fixing the hull.

 

On 10/01/2025 at 11:09, wyx087 said:

Whether you like it or not, we (human) have done too much damage and cannot continue to live in such way. This may require government intervention to push a change for people who don't like changes.

Ooh! Is this one of those posts where you say you want to force people to change their lifestyle to suit your ideology, then shortly afterwards object to me pointing out you're trying to force people to change their lifestyles to suit your agenda?

I'll say it yet again: Stop trying to force people to adopt your ideology. Persuasion would be acceptable, force is unacceptable.

 

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

Yes but TESLA has Elon Musk profiteering from it, for that reason I'm out.

Without the subsidies and EV mandates, there would be no profiteering.

Musk would have to compete on a level playing field.

 

Edit: Definition of profiteering, for the confused. 😘

Edited 12 January, 20251 yr by EnterName

Hilarious!