Sunak pushes back ban on petrol/diesel cars til 2035 .....

HughJanus said:
What about most buildings don’t have the structure to support things like this on their roof?
Apparently they contravene planning regs on some old buildings and their useful life is limited and recycling isn’t practical or it takes a long time to recoup the installation costs.

But I take your point we have to try, we just have to look at thr whole situation logically and there’s no point solving one problem and causing another
Click to expand...
We can mandate new buildings can't we?
We can put insulation in new and old buildings can't we?
There are plenty of things that can be done if the willpower is there.
 
What? said:
The problem is if something is made compulsory people will be suspicious and fight against it, what needs to happen is solar panels, EV's etc need to be an attractive option, cost effective and reliable.

If solar panels were actually a viable alternative for private dwellings we would all have them but in truth they aren't.
Click to expand...
Nuclear power stations aren't cost effective, but the govt subsidizes them to keep a nuclear program going.
If, instead of spending 10 billion to build one power station that takes 20 years to come online the govt gave a million home owners a 10k subsidy to install solar, wind, whatever on their property that could be done in a couple of years, it would be a start. that benefit gets passed onto the next owner as well.

They are viable in lots of places in the world tha thave the same climate as the uk, you're just making up excuses as to why things shouldn't change.
Good job people like you didn't work for NASA or we still wouldn't have reached the moon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Running Fox said:
It may say 450 miles , but soon as you put the heater on and the Radio it drops, add the fact that the battery is like that of a phone and loses its charging capacity over time, in a 4 year old car that 450 miles will be like 150 miles if that.
Click to expand...
Research shows EV's lose about 1% to 2% range per year due to the battery degradation.
Other things notwithstanding, a 450 mile range after one year it would be roughly 445.5 after two it would be about 440, after three 436, after four 431 etc etc ....
 
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
Nuclear power stations aren't cost effective, but the govt subsidizes them to keep a nuclear program going.
If, instead of spending 10 billion to build one power station that takes 20 years to come online the govt gave a million home owners a 10k subsidy to install solar, wind, whatever on their property that could be done in a couple of years, it would be a start. that benefit gets passed onto the next owner as well.

They are viable in lots of places in the world tha thave the same climate as the uk, you're just making up excuses as to why things shouldn't change.
Good job people like you didn't work for NASA or we still wouldn't have reached the moon.
Click to expand...
Have you told the French about Nuclear not being cost effective ?

There are 20 million houses ingredients UK what are planning to do about them?

Going to the moon has made such a massive difference to people in the U.K. and all those emissions were really worthwhile
 
Running Fox said:
It may say 450 miles , but soon as you put the heater on and the Radio it drops, add the fact that the battery is like that of a phone and loses its charging capacity over time, in a 4 year old car that 450 miles will be like 150 miles if that.
Click to expand...
Where did you get these figures from?
I know two people who have recently bought electric, both of whom would have done plenty of research before buying as they do long journeys. Quick check on the internet.

For example, in 2019, research from AAA suggested that when outside temperatures reach 95-degrees F during the summer and AC is used in a vehicle, the driving range can decrease by around 17%. And while that's certainly not good, it's not awful, either. The EPA estimates that gas-powered vehicles can lose upwards of 25% while using the AC.

However, in a comment to The Verge, a Tesla spokesperson disputed AAA's findings and suggested that based on real-world data from the millions of Tesla cars on the road, users won't experience a decrease anywhere near 17%. Tesla claims that at 95-degrees Fahrenheit, using the AC will only lower your Model S range by roughly one percent.
 
Put a little bit of common sense on this we emit a fraction to the earth's pollution levels.
Whilst we are hellbent on zero is beyond my thinking and will do.little to halt the climate .
We are in the thrawl of zealots who think that we should be leaders in the climate change
But penalising a small country for the good of the world makes little sense whilst half a dozen countries could not give a toss for the climate, and carry on blithely as you were
Whilst we are putting our country and its citizens in peril through the costing of this venture.


The other countries are laughing their cotton socks off at our feeble attempts to save the planet , they are getting richer Whilst we stagnate or are thrown into civil conflict
over a few silly people in parliament who have now thought processes.
 
As I’ve said there is no easy solution but trying to force people to do thing has to be based on actual facts not guess work.
 
hackneyfox said:
Where did you get these figures from?
I know two people who have recently bought electric, both of whom would have done plenty of research before buying as they do long journeys. Quick check on the internet.

For example, in 2019, research from AAA suggested that when outside temperatures reach 95-degrees F during the summer and AC is used in a vehicle, the driving range can decrease by around 17%. And while that's certainly not good, it's not awful, either. The EPA estimates that gas-powered vehicles can lose upwards of 25% while using the AC.

However, in a comment to The Verge, a Tesla spokesperson disputed AAA's findings and suggested that based on real-world data from the millions of Tesla cars on the road, users won't experience a decrease anywhere near 17%. Tesla claims that at 95-degrees Fahrenheit, using the AC will only lower your Model S range by roughly one percent.
Click to expand...
Yup. Let's listen to Tesla - a truly independent source
 
One thing this was never debated in the house, and nobody has done a feasability study on the the impacts on its people, monetary wise or to its effects on the economy as a whole
 
HughJanus said:
Have you told the French about Nuclear not being cost effective ?

There are 20 million houses ingredients UK what are planning to do about them?

Going to the moon has made such a massive difference to people in the U.K. and all those emissions were really worthwhile
Click to expand...
the french produce about 70% of their energy from nuclear. it is state owned by EDF.
they do not have enough capacity and have to import power in winter.
building new ones is astronomically expensive.
the french govt have had to put over 2 billion euros into it to cover financial shortfalls in recent times.
 
blackthorn8 said:
Put a little bit of common sense on this we emit a fraction to the earth's pollution levels.
Whilst we are hellbent on zero is beyond my thinking and will do.little to halt the climate .
We are in the thrawl of zealots who think that we should be leaders in the climate change
But penalising a small country for the good of the world makes little sense whilst half a dozen countries could not give a toss for the climate, and carry on blithely as you were
Whilst we are putting our country and its citizens in peril through the costing of this venture.


The other countries are laughing their cotton socks off at our feeble attempts to save the planet , they are getting richer Whilst we stagnate or are thrown into civil conflict
over a few silly people in parliament who have now thought processes.
Click to expand...
how about future generations?
how about the fact the the UK being at the start of the industrial revolution has polluted more and longer than many other countries over time?
newer economies argue, quite rightly, you got to be an economic powerhouse by polluting for 150 years before we even started with no penalties why should we be penalized now?

maybe it's time we paid our debt and lead the way?
 
Can you imagine some of the people on here at important points in history.

what happened to the British can-do attitude?

dunkirk - Nah, not worth it, we don't have enough boats to get them all out, let's not bother.

Everest - it's a big mountain, we might not make it to the top, let's not try.

amundsen - it's cold and a long way, i'm not sure it's worth trying.

finding America - it's a long way across that ocean, maybe there's nothing there, let's stay home.

the moon - i've done that one already.

the best of the human race is when we all come together and try to solve a problem.

fack me, what a bunch of quitters.
 
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
Nuclear power stations aren't cost effective, but the govt subsidizes them to keep a nuclear program going.
If, instead of spending 10 billion to build one power station that takes 20 years to come online the govt gave a million home owners a 10k subsidy to install solar, wind, whatever on their property that could be done in a couple of years, it would be a start. that benefit gets passed onto the next owner as well.

They are viable in lots of places in the world tha thave the same climate as the uk, you're just making up excuses as to why things shouldn't change.
Good job people like you didn't work for NASA or we still wouldn't have reached the moon.
Click to expand...
All the nuclear power stations in this country are owned by EDF (France) and the profits go to there pension schemes. As a green deal advisor I was involved in the helping of people to make there homes more energy efficient, it worked to a point, but old houses need so much spending on them that its a vast money pit, I honestly felt that it was a huge scam, Solar panels are good if you have a south facing roof that is big enough to take the system required, but that is maybe one in ten homes. Farmers have made a fortune from wind turbines but not convinced that the electricity return is enough for the subsidies we all pay
 
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
newer economies argue, quite rightly, you got to be an economic powerhouse by polluting for 150 years before we even started with no penalties why should we be penalized now?
Click to expand...

Tuz has a point (y)

I've just spent the past 18 months restoring an '88 Mercury Marquis. It's on the road, I'll bomb around in that while you zipperheads catch the local mule home from work 😇
 
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
Can you imagine some of the people on here at important points in history.

what happened to the British can-do attitude?

dunkirk - Nah, not worth it, we don't have enough boats to get them all out, let's not bother.

Everest - it's a big mountain, we might not make it to the top, let's not try.

amundsen - it's cold and a long way, i'm not sure it's worth trying.

finding America - it's a long way across that ocean, maybe there's nothing there, let's stay home.

the moon - i've done that one already.

the best of the human race is when we all come together and try to solve a problem.

fack me, what a bunch of quitters.
Click to expand...
It's not about quitting FFS if you want to get the greenhouses gases down to a level where it does not endanger the planet the the World has to co-operate.
Our petty little percentage is a drop in the ocean compared to countries that don't give a shit.
So our.policy will do nothing to the grand overall status of the issue, I agree its a stand but fuck me it's not worth the pot to piss in.
If the other countries do not want to co-operate then the planets in the shit.
 
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
how about future generations?
how about the fact the the UK being at the start of the industrial revolution has polluted more and longer than many other countries over time?
newer economies argue, quite rightly, you got to be an economic powerhouse by polluting for 150 years before we even started with no penalties why should we be penalized now?

maybe it's time we paid our debt and lead the way?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that's was the price for progress ... how did anyone know the industrial revolution would have the dramatic scenario that's led to today's climate
Hello bells it's just like the slave trade reparation for what happened in the dim and distant past it's history live with it
 
When are people going to realise the is no climate problem? Also when will people realise that if ice melts in your drink the level of your drink stays the same.
 
mac said:
They lizards only called it Tesla to take the piss, they’re always taking the piss.
Click to expand...

Worth a minute

The state cannot abolish the contradiction which exits between the role and good intentions of the administration on the one hand and the means at its disposal on the other, without abolishing itself, for it rests on this contradiction. It rests on the contrast between public and private life, on the contrast between general and particular interests. The administration must therefore limit itself to a formal and negative activity, for its power ceases just where civil life and work begin.
Click to expand...
 
hackneyfox said:
So put up tens of thousands of them and place them more locally?
Had this discussion with someone recently who believes they're a blight on the landscape, pointed out that perhaps people thought the same when electricity pylons were first erected, perhaps even telegraph poles. After a while you don't even notice them.
Click to expand...
You do know that your magical wind turbines are powered by diesel generators.
 
Well Tuz I have to say I’m impressed. You’ve managed to turn a debate about the merits of banning combustion engines into global warming being all my fault because my great great grandad was a miner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top