1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

To receive fossil fuel funding requires "correct conclusion"

You are taking one sided view of who funds research papers, I'm not going to do your research for you but there are multiple organisations worldwide that are wanting to pursue a climate change agenda who have funded many papers.

Here's one example - Al Gore has created organisations with significant funding (mostly from high worth individuals) much of which has been spent on funding research as well as activism and public speaking.

2 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

You are taking one sided view of who funds research papers, I'm not going to do your research for you but there are multiple organisations worldwide that are wanting to pursue a climate change agenda who have funded many papers.

Here's one example - Al Gore has created organisations with significant funding (mostly from high worth individuals) much of which has been spent on funding research as well as activism and public speaking.

That is part of the problem, so many people have already formed closed minds and as such anyone who has a different opinion must be on the losers side of the debate, because we are not following the current authority lead narrative.

I've always stated that I have an open mind, and I don't just take what the authorities tell us as being 100% factual, as many of us have already witnessed some massive climb downs and reversals.

When I was going to college learning my craft, I was inspired by a number of the professors there who used to say "as you gradually learn something, that's when you also realise just how little you do know" and also "Never accept that something your told by authoritative figures as being 100% factual, because if that were true then there is no room for new discoveries". I was taught that if you do X and the result is Y, that is just the start for the inquisitive, and is a point where most people will stop at, but the inquisitive will ask, why does that result happen, what if I did Z, what is the outcome then and why is that different, this how great discoveries are made, but also not all discoveries are great, is the Nuclear bomb a great discovery, when it has the potential to wipe out life on earth??

We should all have inquisitive minds and question things, not just accept what we are told.

Edited 8 August, 20258 Aug by Graham Butcher

2 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

You are taking one sided view of who funds research papers, I'm not going to do your research for you but there are multiple organisations worldwide that are wanting to pursue a climate change agenda who have funded many papers.

Here's one example - Al Gore has created organisations with significant funding (mostly from high worth individuals) much of which has been spent on funding research as well as activism and public speaking.

No, I'm laying out history. Funding for research happens on both sides, no doubt about it, that's how academia works. But funding by "interested bodies" specifically for "foregone conclusion" only happens by fossil fuel industry simply because that is the only way to get the conclusion. Funding for scientific research will always have a goal, but the conclusion is usually not foregone.

Again, let me point you to my previous post. Where papers arguing for climate change are usually written by large number of authors and peer reviewed, published in well regarded journals.

Paper against climate change are typically written by the single person getting paid off. Then published in poorly peer reviewed journals.

If you are arguing otherwise, you should be the one providing sources.

As for Al Gore's organisation. You must be talking about this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management

I've gone through a number of search results and I've not seen any record of shady practices by this organisation. Have you?

I sense there is a misunderstanding between providing funding to research and having editorial control over said report/paper's conclusion. Unless you can prove the latter, as I have by fossil fuel industry, just saying "significant funding (mostly from high worth individuals)" doesn't mean much.

Oh and Graham, no one is taking what the authorities tells us being 100%. They are influenced by lobby groups, for cars it's the incumbent manufacturers.

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Oh and Graham, no one is taking what the authorities tells us being 100%. They are influenced by lobby groups, for cars it's the incumbent manufacturers.

Once again, you seem to have deliberately misinterpreted in order to make a point that was not relevant, it is not the car makers who are pushing the electric agenda. Most of the car makers are only too happy to continue making ICE cars, something that they have many years of experience of doing just that, no need for expensive tooling up for new technologies.

Edited 6 August, 20256 Aug by Graham Butcher

4 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Once again, you seem to have deliberately misinterpreted in order to make a point that was not relevant, it is not the car makers who are pushing the electric agenda. Most of the car makers are only too happy to continue making ICE cars, something that they have many years of experience of doing just that, no need for expensive tooling up for new technologies.

Once again, you are placing your misunderstanding/inability to understand as other people's fault.

Also, instead of sniping, I'd appreciate directly speaking.

The purpose of big corporation like car makers are always to make money. They don't care what they make. So what they need is clear regulatory framework. There is no continue making same thing as technology always moves on, even if it's still ICE there is still huge engineering efforts required to meet latest emission standards.

The purpose of government, despite being only in power for 4 years a time, is (supposed) to do what is best long term for the nation and everyone living in it. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that electrification is required ASAP. The government is therefore looking to electrify everything in a timely manner.

This timely manner has been delayed by efforts of incumbent car makers. Not because they don't want to change, but because they didn't innovate in 2010's and need time to plan and make the changes now. Government press release even touches on it: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pathway-for-zero-emission-vehicle-transition-by-2035-becomes-law

"Following extensive consultation with industry and manufacturers, the mandate provides them with the certainty they have called for to safeguard skilled British jobs."

There is a difference between "formed closed minds" and able to understand how the world works. I'm afraid you are firmly in the the former based on the amount of extremely biased small channel social media videos you share.

40 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Once again, you are placing your misunderstanding/inability to understand as other people's fault.

Also, instead of sniping, I'd appreciate directly speaking.

The purpose of big corporation like car makers are always to make money. They don't care what they make. So what they need is clear regulatory framework. There is no continue making same thing as technology always moves on, even if it's still ICE there is still huge engineering efforts required to meet latest emission standards.

The purpose of government, despite being only in power for 4 years a time, is (supposed) to do what is best long term for the nation and everyone living in it. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that electrification is required ASAP. The government is therefore looking to electrify everything in a timely manner.

This timely manner has been delayed by efforts of incumbent car makers. Not because they don't want to change, but because they didn't innovate in 2010's and need time to plan and make the changes now. Government press release even touches on it: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pathway-for-zero-emission-vehicle-transition-by-2035-becomes-law

"Following extensive consultation with industry and manufacturers, the mandate provides them with the certainty they have called for to safeguard skilled British jobs."

There is a difference between "formed closed minds" and able to understand how the world works. I'm afraid you are firmly in the the former based on the amount of extremely biased small channel social media videos you share.

The UK and most of Europe was shown how it is reliant on Russian gas and oil and now Middle East gas and oil had to go down to round South Africa rather than being able to go thru Suez safely.

Couple that with the massive falls in the price of lithium batteries, whether NMC or LFP, solar panels and wind turbines these techs came along at just the right time and offered another solution which is under UK /EU control rather the foreign despots.

Would like to see more tidal added as it is a more stable power source but with the new big nuclear sites going to come on stream ie Hinkkey C and Sizewell it is looking on course to looker gas etc plants to a standby status.

18 hours ago, lol-lol said:

Couple that with the massive falls in the price of lithium batteries, whether NMC or LFP, solar panels and wind turbines these techs came along at just the right time and offered another solution which is under UK /EU control rather the foreign despots.

Would like to see more tidal added as it is a more stable power source but with the new big nuclear sites going to come on stream ie Hinkkey C and Sizewell it is looking on course to looker gas etc plants to a standby status.

Lithium batteries won't be under our control until we have an industrial scale source of Lithium in the UK, which seems many years off.

Totally agree about tidal, places like the Pentland Firth have enormous potential to generate significant amounts.

Just yesterday there was talk of proposals / a wish or p!ss in the wind that 4 times as much offshore wind will be produced off Scotland.

Enough for 46 million homes. (2 million homes in Scotland and already they could have 4 times the electricity from renewables.)

The south needs to get it's hand in it's pocket then because transmission costs are already high and doubling and the energy that can already be produced is not be used.

Time those wanting to produce hydrogen were building the plants up near to where the electricity comes ashore.

Edited 7 August, 20257 Aug by Ootohere

1 hour ago, PetrolDave said:

Lithium batteries won't be under our control until we have an industrial scale source of Lithium in the UK, which seems many years off.

The beauty with batteries, unlike fossil fuel, is that it can be used many times for many years once it is here.

2 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

Lithium batteries won't be under our control until we have an industrial scale source of Lithium in the UK, which seems many years off.

Totally agree about tidal, places like the Pentland Firth have enormous potential to generate significant amounts.

I think there might be some decent deposits in Cornwall and Devon it is more whether they can find people to work down there. Some deposits of useful elements in the Exmoor area too ?

South Croft being invested in and Hemerdon in South Devon where I use to live. Investment of £29M being put in to Cornwall mines i gather.

Lithium in Cornwall is reckoned to be in the subterranean water so may need Cambourne School of mines to help out i would guess. Perhaps part of the UK military budget could be used as there are minerals which are strategic.

Full Severn Barrage could supply up to 10 GWs though i suspect small projects like Swansea Bay more likely to go ahead along with the Mersey barrage could provide useful and stable amounts of power. Just need storage to provide the extra power between Neap and Spring tide fluctuations.

Shame Dinorwig and Ffestinog pump storage are not running visitor program. Probably the most impressive peice of engineering I have seen in the UK. Hope the Great Glen 30 Gwh project goes ahead. The Australians have a project ten times bigger than this in the Snowy Mountain schem think it is.

Man at its best.

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

I think there might be some decent deposits in Cornwall and Devon it is more whether they can find people to work down there. Some deposits of useful elements in the Exmoor area too ?

South Croft being invested in and Hemerdon in South Devon where I use to live. Investment of £29M being put in to Cornwall mines i gather.

Lithium in Cornwall is reckoned to be in the subterranean water so may need Cambourne School of mines to help out i would guess. Perhaps part of the UK military budget could be used as there are minerals which are strategic.

Full Severn Barrage could supply up to 10 GWs though i suspect small projects like Swansea Bay more likely to go ahead along with the Mersey barrage could provide useful and stable amounts of power. Just need storage to provide the extra power between Neap and Spring tide fluctuations.

Shame Dinorwig and Ffestinog pump storage are not running visitor program. Probably the most impressive peice of engineering I have seen in the UK. Hope the Great Glen 30 Gwh project goes ahead. The Australians have a project ten times bigger than this in the Snowy Mountain schem think it is.

Man at its best.

For that matter, maybe they could enlist assistance from Imperial College school of mines, London.

IIRC, the minerals and the lithium was deemed to be not commercially viable to extract as the quantity is not large enough and it is difficult to get at.

2 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

For that matter, maybe they could enlist assistance from Imperial College school of mines, London.

IIRC, the minerals and the lithium was deemed to be not commercially viable to extract as the quantity is not large enough and it is difficult to get at.

These mines tend to contain several minerals in the ore, tin, tungsten, arsenic as well as lithium and other minerals.

I mentioned the security of so economics are sidelined. That said it does appear that Sweden has vast quantities of many key minerals. If we can rely on Sweden. They were "neutral" in WW2 I seem to remember.

There will be ever increasing lithium battery recycling of course. Phone battery chemistry is the more rare earth chemicals as well as the lithium. Also laptop batteries of course.

As well as recycling it is expected that sodium batteries will become more pervasive. No shortage of sodium of course. UK needs to stockpile to the right degree. Perhaps the LME should add to its reserves.

My firm stores massive amounts of "Accumulolators" for car production. They comes in Zero duty under an Aurltonomous Suspension currently even though from 🇨🇳.

Best it stays where it is then until economically viable.

Just as Norway are doing where they have lots. Its for future generations to benefit from.

Just as the more difficult to get out oil and gas is left until it is more valuable.

Only the UK Government is greedy.

Not taking it out from under England though, rather be sure it is the north seas that gets sold on the global market.

4 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

Best it stays where it is then until economically viable.

Just as Norway are doing where they have lots. Its for future generations to benefit from.

Just as the more difficult to get out oil and gas is left until it is more valuable.

Only the UK Government is greedy.

Not taking it out from under England though, rather be sure it is the north seas that gets sold on the global market.

5 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

Best it stays where it is then until economically viable.

Just as Norway are doing where they have lots. Its for future generations to benefit from.

Just as the more difficult to get out oil and gas is left until it is more valuable.

Only the UK Government is greedy.

Not taking it out from under England though, rather be sure it is the north seas that gets sold on the global market.

Problem is with that oil coming out of the seabed the UK the East coast of the UK seems to be slipping down lower and lower, along with rising sea level too buy we don't want all of those Easterners coming over to the West of the UK !!

Trouble is they think the oil & gas pipes are going to be used to put the carbon out under the North sea in the east.

Yet more billions going the way of those on the gravy train and in the end there is to continue being just as much emissions from dirty industries.

How much has been spent in the past 2 decades of never even getting the scheme underway?

Another round of an hour of free Electricity tomorrow, Saturday 9th August, 2 to 3pm. Seems like a good combo of sun and wind currently.

Octopus plan to do about ten of these before Earth's seasonal obliquiry approaches the equatoral plane.

Edited 8 August, 20258 Aug by lol-lol

They've also changed policy so that Intelligent customers also get free home energy. Initially IOG only get free car charging.

I'll be away, so I'll plug in the Leaf and also charge up home battery during that hour. Get 10 kWh, equate to ~1 day worth of free energy. Then combined with solar, use it to power my Air-Con over Monday and Tuesday. 😁

Well, taking 3 cars, all based on the same chassis and model version, Car Wow have done some real world tests and the actual results are going to open your eyes a bit and also sort of reinforces why I think it pays to have and keep an open mind, especially if you a private motorist and thus unable gain any benefit in the form of grants and or taxation.

'Massive Tax Breaks' Is totally irrelevant for a private driver paying for their car from their after tax money.

No business user, salary sacrifice or such stuff.

And the person that pays for their own car and fuel and drives to and from work each way from home and can charge at home, (The 6.7 pence, not 30 pence a kWh) Home to work & back which is 40 miles (maybe 45) and charges the PHEV is doing 200 miles and can for £4.50 in electric for 5 days..

The petrol car will be £6 a day or so. £30 a week.

That is why there are many that have a PHEV and might work or not work. Like retired people. They drive local cheaply. They are no worse off paying more for a PHEV to buy if it is more expensive, maybe bought nearly new. They know they can go further when they do occasionally and charge or not when going further. Everyone is different. And not everyone drives motorways. 45 weeks a year doing 200 miles on electric 9,000 miles. £4.50 a week £202.50.

Even is you add in £6.50 a week for a gallon of petrol. Or 52 gallons @£6.50 , £338. 40 mpg. 2080 miles. Total miles 11,080 for £540.50.

Car used for going back and for to work.

No HMRC / Tax payer assistance or payment from others.

11,080 miles @ 45 mpg, 246.2 gallons. @£6.20 = £1,526.50

Edited 9 August, 20259 Aug by Ootohere

16 hours ago, Ootohere said:

'Massive Tax Breaks' Is totally irrelevant for a private driver paying for their car from their after tax money.

No business user, salary sacrifice or such stuff.

And the person that pays for their own car and fuel and drives to and from work each way from home and can charge at home, (The 6.7 pence, not 30 pence a kWh) Home to work & back which is 40 miles (maybe 45) and charges the PHEV is doing 200 miles and can for £4.50 in electric for 5 days..

The petrol car will be £6 a day or so. £30 a week.

That is why there are many that have a PHEV and might work or not work. Like retired people. They drive local cheaply. They are no worse off paying more for a PHEV to buy if it is more expensive, maybe bought nearly new. They know they can go further when they do occasionally and charge or not when going further. Everyone is different. And not everyone drives motorways. 45 weeks a year doing 200 miles on electric 9,000 miles. £4.50 a week £202.50.

Even is you add in £6.50 a week for a gallon of petrol. Or 52 gallons @£6.50 , £338. 40 mpg. 2080 miles. Total miles 11,080 for £540.50.

Car used for going back and for to work.

No HMRC / Tax payer assistance or payment from others.

11,080 miles @ 45 mpg, 246.2 gallons. @£6.20 = £1,526.50

The point of the video was also about the massive price hikes the Hybrid and PHEV have over the ICE, he actually makes the point about the amount of miles you would have to drive in pure electric mode to recoup that price difference, which is for a lot of people many years of motoring, which if you don't that many local miles, could mean that you pay a lot more for allegedly being green.☹️

Horses for courses, and what suits some will not suit others. I would like to spend the hundreds of thousands he does on Porsches, then mods them.

How much per mile they cost him during his ownership must be a huge figure.

Actually the BMW,s have such a price difference, and he shows these.

It is not such a difference between the 3 types of power train from other manufacturers.

Carwow has their article to read on the Cons of the PHEV,s and how you pay a premium to get them.

Actually you have to look at each case, and buying new or used can be very different.

RELEVANT can be what you pay if buying a used version, what depreciation was on a PHEV compared to the ICE.

& That is OK, about driving in pure electric because many do just that.

You might get a Used PHEV that has never been plugged in, or one that was getting charged daily.

That is a lottery.

Edited 9 August, 20259 Aug by Ootohere

mild hybrid ICE: 50% residual

PHEV: 50.87% residual

BEV: 59.4% residual.

The numbers tell a different story to the voice over.......

22 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

keep an open mind

You are more like being a sheep and believe whatever you are told without verifying.

Lithium batteries were actually invented by a big oil company Exxon and here is the interesting part and may explain the catalyst for the rise of the EV cars, and it may also explain why big oil has not really been visible to that degree opposing EVs.

Everyone has talking about the worlds governments being pressurised by lobby groups working for secretive cash rich organisations who have a vested interest in governments going down a particular path. Recently there has been some discussion on the validity of many scientific papers and experimentation results giving a predetermined conclusion in return for expected results, more funding becomes available and so on.

This video shows the development of the batteries, now, "what if" big oil never gave up all rights to the intellectual rights.........

9 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

now, "what if" big oil never gave up all rights to the intellectual rights

How?

Patents, which protect inventions and processes, typically last for 20 years from the filing date in the United States. This period is fixed and cannot be renewed, after which the invention becomes freely available for others to use and build upon.

Also, did you actually watch the video? The idea of li-on battery was initially from a researcher at Exxon, a big fossil fuel company. But the experiment was not a viable usable product. Actually making it into a viable product was done by Goodenough (at Oxford uni) and then Yoshino (for Sanyo/Sony). No fossil fuel company involvement beyond the initial 2v experiment.

It's amazing you have the ability to take a straight forward story and twist it into your version just so it can fit into your unchanging closed minded narrative.

Here's a text summarised version for anyone interested:

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2019/popular-information/

12 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

How?

Patents, which protect inventions and processes, typically last for 20 years from the filing date in the United States. This period is fixed and cannot be renewed, after which the invention becomes freely available for others to use and build upon.

Also, did you actually watch the video? The idea of li-on battery was initially from a researcher at Exxon, a big fossil fuel company. But the experiment was not a viable usable product. Actually making it into a viable product was done by Goodenough (at Oxford uni) and then Yoshino (for Sanyo/Sony). No fossil fuel company involvement beyond the initial 2v experiment.

It's amazing you have the ability to take a straight forward story and twist it into your version just so it can fit into your unchanging closed minded narrative.

Here's a text summarised version for anyone interested:

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2019/popular-information/

The video, as usual for these sorts of click bait and jumbled thinking starts with a picture and dis-assembly of a Lithium 18650 battery for some reason, the internals of a lead acid battery or coked up ICE car is no prettier pictures.

The 18650 did revolutionise but it is fading tech as is Lithium in favour of Lithium Iron Phosphate so the video above is old news and we have moved on massively from that situation. LFP now have the energy density way over 200 W per Kg, they are safe and much cheaper. CATL and BYD batteries have revolutionised cheap EV production but it is good to see diversity of supply. I have know for ages that S.Korea's LG, LGES, have been producing very good Lithium /LFP batteries, Renault have been buying them for may years and then building their packs in France from the batteries and it appears Tesla is going to do the same process in the US with a $4.3B deal to buy LG batteries and build battery packs in the US.

The Tesla 3+ and later the Model Y, the world best selling car, will have a range 20% greater than the current models and be cheaper and qualify for UK and over country subsidies. Couple that with between free and almost free topping up with lecky, cheap overnight, free home electricity sessions and frequent plunge pricing at public chargers due to excess Grid power and it is game over for ICE vehicles.

Edited 10 August, 202510 Aug by lol-lol