Author Topic: Stinky Rebellion  (Read 5825 times)

Offline lostandfound


You're entitled to your opinion.

But think of any big news story, any, you really think there'd be the same impact and understanding if it was someone just reporting from a studio? With no local pictures? From a face you trust?

It doesn't work that way for the vast majority. Whatever you may or may not think of Attenborough, he is trusted by millions to tell a story, and he can tell that story a lot better by being there and showing real pictures.

That's not to be confused with celebs being on some jolly under the guise of 'reporting' what they find.

That phrase always sounds so condescending.  :lol:

Unless and until the likes of Attenborough radically modify their own behaviour IMO they have zero credibility asking others to modify theirs.

Yes, it would mean changes to the way his TV programmes are presented, which would reflect the big changes celebs like Attenborough demand others make.

BAU for the like of him means BAU for all - for that is what is happening. (Pace Covid).


Offline winkywanky

That phrase always sounds so condescending.  :lol:

Unless and until the likes of Attenborough radically modify their own behaviour IMO they have zero credibility asking others to modify theirs.

Yes, it would mean changes to the way his TV programmes are presented, which would reflect the big changes celebs like Attenborough demand others make.

BAU for the like of him means BAU for all - for that is what is happening. (Pace Covid).


I didn't mean it that way.

Just pointing out that you'd be in a small minority in thinking that  :D  ;)

But of course I couldn't prove that  :P

Offline lostandfound


I didn't mean it that way.

Just pointing out that you'd be in a small minority in thinking that  :D  ;)

But of course I couldn't prove that  :P

No offence taken, anyway, - I have a thick skin!  :lol:

A minority - hmm - maybe, the thing with climate change is a majority will agree with the sentiment and almost any fine words, but nobody will actually do anything meaningful - like change the way they make TV programmes to reduce their carbon footprint.

Which, coming back to another similar discussion, is why I believe technology will solve the problem, because it can, and because getting people to make meaningful changes to their behaviour is very difficult.

Offline bushman

I think what they (environmentalists) should try and focus is population control and a bigger recycling culture.

Population growth is out of hand. Doesn't matter what we do about our CO2 or Methane emissions unless we curb world population the world resources would struggle in the future.
Recycling culture is required especially in areas where specialist minerals(rare) are required. Look at Apple, they are one big fuck off company they almost force you to upgrade your phone. Our younger generation spent so much money on shit.

Personally I don't think battery operated vehicles (EV) are the answer. Focus should be on hydrogen.

Offline winkywanky

No offence taken, anyway, - I have a thick skin!  :lol:

A minority - hmm - maybe, the thing with climate change is a majority will agree with the sentiment and almost any fine words, but nobody will actually do anything meaningful - like change the way they make TV programmes to reduce their carbon footprint.

Which, coming back to another similar discussion, is why I believe technology will solve the problem, because it can, and because getting people to make meaningful changes to their behaviour is very difficult.


Look out for the "Albert +" or whatever it is, logo at the end of an increasing number of TV programmes.

That means that the lighting rig in the studio comprises LED lamps instead of traditional filament lamps. The reduction in power required is HUGE, as well as the much lower air-conditioning required as a result.

That's a big financial outlay, changing all the lamps. I believe Sky started it and now BBC and ITV are going (have gone) the same way.

Offline lostandfound


Look out for the "Albert +" or whatever it is, logo at the end of an increasing number of TV programmes.

That means that the lighting rig in the studio comprises LED lamps instead of traditional filament lamps. The reduction in power required is HUGE, as well as the much lower air-conditioning required as a result.

That's a big financial outlay, changing all the lamps. I believe Sky started it and now BBC and ITV are going (have gone) the same way.

Tbh I think 2 things about that. Firstly it doesn't inconvenience in any way, beyond a bit of financial outlay, by organisations which have a lot of money (though they're often pleading poverty).

Secondly, it means they didn't have to change their behaviour, but rather deploy technology, which I respectively submit is what I have been saying!  :D

Offline winkywanky

Tbh I think 2 things about that. Firstly it doesn't inconvenience in any way, beyond a bit of financial outlay, by organisations which have a lot of money (though they're often pleading poverty).

Secondly, it means they didn't have to change their behaviour, but rather deploy technology, which I respectively submit is what I have been saying!  :D


It's all about everyone making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint/emissions/plastics waste, whatever.

We could all be living in a cold and dark hovel eating lettuce leaves by candle light to save the planet (unlikely), or we could all do a bit which then adds up to a lot.

Perhaps you don't watch any telly, but if you do, how would you like them to change?

Offline lostandfound


It's all about everyone making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint/emissions/plastics waste, whatever.

We could all be living in a cold and dark hovel eating lettuce leaves by candle light to save the planet (unlikely), or we could all do a bit which then adds up to a lot.

Perhaps you don't watch any telly, but if you do, how would you like them to change?

I believe people will do their bit so long as it doesn't inconvenience them / require an inconvenient change to their behaviour. People will express good intentions but won't act if it causes significant inconvenience. That I believe has long been the lament over the climate change conferences. Nations go away from the conferences and carry on as before.

IMO saw this in Brizzle over Council's plan to ban private diesel cars from around the city centre. Lead to outcry from diesel car owners, and this plan has quietly been dropped. Face saving claim by the council that emissions have dropped because of Covid, and Covid has damaged the economy to the extent that they don't want to inflict any futher economic pain through a ULEZ.

People aren't going to stop flying away on holiday, or leasing SUVs, or go veggie etc etc

Gradual change through new tech like renewables, LED lights etc is the only practical way forward IMO.

I don't watch telly as it happens, but the change I would like to see them make is to stop lecturing the rest of us!  :D

Offline winkywanky

I believe people will do their bit so long as it doesn't inconvenience them / require an inconvenient change to their behaviour. People will express good intentions but won't act if it causes significant inconvenience. That I believe has long been the lament over the climate change conferences. Nations go away from the conferences and carry on as before.

IMO saw this in Brizzle over Council's plan to ban private diesel cars from around the city centre. Lead to outcry from diesel car owners, and this plan has quietly been dropped. Face saving claim by the council that emissions have dropped because of Covid, and Covid has damaged the economy to the extent that they don't want to inflict any futher economic pain through a ULEZ.

People aren't going to stop flying away on holiday, or leasing SUVs, or go veggie etc etc

Gradual change through new tech like renewables, LED lights etc is the only practical way forward IMO.

I don't watch telly as it happens, but the change I would like to see them make is to stop lecturing the rest of us!  :D


I think that's the point, none of this does need to be unduly inconvenient.

Bit by bit we can all have cleaner cars, bit by bit we have better insulated homes, bit by bit we all have less plastic packaging on our food, bit by bit we now have 40% of our electricity from renewables. Have any of us really notced that? No :thumbsup:. And all the rest of it.

It just needs a bit of awareness and a bit of showing up our leaders and big business. Change is happening. We can't just sit around changing nothing and waiting for it all to go wrong.

Offline lostandfound


I think that's the point, none of this does need to be unduly inconvenient.

Bit by bit we can all have cleaner cars, bit by bit we have better insulated homes, bit by bit we all have less plastic packaging on our food, bit by bit we now have 40% of our electricity from renewables. Have any of us really notced that? No :thumbsup:. And all the rest of it.

It just needs a bit of awareness and a bit of showing up our leaders and big business. Change is happening. We can't just sit around changing nothing and waiting for it all to go wrong.

Sure - but it is this kind of thing I disagree with -

External Link/Members Only

Attenborough the face of a campaign to bring forward a ban on all ICE vehicles, including hybrids, from 2040 to 2035. Not as mad as FOE who say 2030, and XR who I believe say carbon neutral by 2025.

Caused an outcry, and it has since gone out to public consultation, which I believed closed recently.

Gradual change is the ticket, not headline grabbing extreme pronouncements. Major European car makers like VW and Mercedes are already pivoting towards electric vehicles as fast as they can. Plucking a deadline out the air, rather than carefully considering what is possible, or even what will cause the least emissions - a disorganised rush for BEV might cause MORE emissions - is bonkers.

Offline Wadebridge

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 326
  • Likes: 0
  •  
  • Reviews: 7
IMO saw this in Brizzle over Council's plan to ban private diesel cars from around the city centre. Lead to outcry from diesel car owners, and this plan has quietly been dropped. Face saving claim by the council that emissions have dropped because of Covid, and Covid has damaged the economy to the extent that they don't want to inflict any futher economic pain through a ULEZ.
That is absolutely my pet hate. Diesel cars and their selfish, unthinking drivers who park one up in the street, or opposite the supermarket cash point, and just leave it on stand with the engine chugging away, choking all the pedestrians to death; or to a severe coughing bout anyway; without an environmental thought in their empty heads.
I have a petrol car, but FFS I even start and then switch the engine off immediately just to get out and close my garage door behind me. Saves my lungs as well every day.
Bristol council imo should have just told the dissenters to fuck off.
Same with mayor Khan in London. He is absolutely anti-diesel but has done fuck all to prohibit taxi drivers from making station approaches some of the foulest air in the Capital.
Amsterdam is a city that's going diesel free very soon, if not already. No ifs, no buts, no trying to appease people whose nose might be put out of joint.
But then again it's the continent. The Europeans just seem to be so much better than us at devising a plan, getting on and implementing it, with little or no fuss.
Passing a law that would discourage, or even heavily fine, motorists from leaving their polluting engines running whilst their car was on stand would probably save thousands of tonnes of emissions over the course of a year.
It would be something the government could be 'seen to be doing'. But as usual our fucktards won't consider anything like that. They are too busy trying to organise a piss up in a pub, post Covid-era.
Banned reason: Posting on politics again despite previous 7 day ban.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline winkywanky

Sure - but it is this kind of thing I disagree with -

External Link/Members Only

Attenborough the face of a campaign to bring forward a ban on all ICE vehicles, including hybrids, from 2040 to 2035. Not as mad as FOE who say 2030, and XR who I believe say carbon neutral by 2025.

Caused an outcry, and it has since gone out to public consultation, which I believed closed recently.

Gradual change is the ticket, not headline grabbing extreme pronouncements. Major European car makers like VW and Mercedes are already pivoting towards electric vehicles as fast as they can. Plucking a deadline out the air, rather than carefully considering what is possible, or even what will cause the least emissions - a disorganised rush for BEV might cause MORE emissions - is bonkers.


He's been asked by govt to be the face of that, I couldn't see him saying no to it? It's something the govt want.

I think 15yrs is plenty time for everyone's old car to wear out and for manufacturers to be gearing up for electric? Battery tech is proceeding in leaps and bounds, what seems a pain in the arse now will feel normal in about 10yrs. Plenty time for the range to extend to 400/500 miles on one charge, and for there to be lots of charging points around.

15yrs is hardly sudden, is it? And selecting that goal now means everyone has plenty of notice and knows where the goalposts are.

I can't really see a problem with that, and I'm a petrolhead.

Offline lostandfound


He's been asked by govt to be the face of that, I couldn't see him saying no to it? It's something the govt want.

I think 15yrs is plenty time for everyone's old car to wear out and for manufacturers to be gearing up for electric? Battery tech is proceeding in leaps and bounds, what seems a pain in the arse now will feel normal in about 10yrs. Plenty time for the range to extend to 400/500 miles on one charge, and for there to be lots of charging points around.

15yrs is hardly sudden, is it? And selecting that goal now means everyone has plenty of notice and knows where the goalposts are.

I can't really see a problem with that, and I'm a petrolhead.

The reality is that the gov does not know if it is possible by 2035. It is just plucking a date out of the air. The people who have more of an idea if it is possible are automotive engineers not politicians and climate activists or members of the public at large.

AIUI it is known, for example, that expected demand for batteries in the coming years is twice the planned production. Bit of a problem there. And already, because of European legislation we are being sold hybrid vehicles that are complex and expensive and which are being made for the benefit of car manufacturers - to allow them to meet fleet average emissions targets - rather than consumers.

Battery tech is not proceeding in leaps and bounds. It's kind of stuck and waiting upon / hoping for a leap or bound to be made, but noone knows if that will happen in the next few years, or the next decade.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 04:22:20 pm by lostandfound »

Offline winkywanky

The reality is that the gov does not know if it is possible by 2035. It is just plucking a date out of the air. The people who have more of an idea if it is possible are automotive engineers not politicians and climate activists or members of the public at large.

AIUI it is known, for example, that expected demand for batteries in the coming years is twice the planned production. Bit of a problem there. And already, because of European legislation we are being sold hybrid vehicles that are complex and expensive and which are being made for the benefit of car manufacturers - to allow them to meet fleet average emissions targets - rather than consumers.

Battery tech is not proceeding in leaps and bounds. It's kind of stuck and waiting upon / hoping for a leap or bound to be made, but noone knows if that will happen in the next few years, or the next decade.


Yes, but this is a pressing issue. Have they really plucked it out of thin air? Or have they consulted on the likely reality of what's possible?

With this type of thing it seems to me that you need to set a deadline to make it happen. Otherwise it never will. Manufacturers will be happy to just drift along bringing a newer, prettier model out every year. For a real sea-change such as this there needs to be a degree of compulsion.

I think you're wrong about battery tech unless you can provide evidence to support that. I'm pretty sure I've heard Musk and others saying there will be developments in the near future. Necessity is the mother of invention. It's 15 years we're talking about here.

Offline lostandfound


Yes, but this is a pressing issue. Have they really plucked it out of thin air? Or have they consulted on the likely reality of what's possible?

With this type of thing it seems to me that you need to set a deadline to make it happen. Otherwise it never will. Manufacturers will be happy to just drift along bringing a newer, prettier model out every year. For a real sea-change such as this there needs to be a degree of compulsion.

I think you're wrong about battery tech unless you can provide evidence to support that. I'm pretty sure I've heard Musk and others saying there will be developments in the near future. Necessity is the mother of invention. It's 15 years we're talking about here.

You ask "Have they really plucked it out of thin air?". That has to be a rhetorical question. This government? What do you think?  :D

A sea change such as this is dependent on scientific discoveries which are as yet unknown, and then production engineering on a scale and complexity that is beyond the imagination of most people.

Can only bounce your final question back, you're wrong about battery tech unless you can provide evidence to support that? It depends on fundamental scientific discoveries which are capable of being developed into economically viable mass scale production which cannot be wished into existence by politicians and climate activists - or Elon Musk.

At the mo we are stuck with lithium ion chemistry, discovered at Oxford university nigh on 50 years ago - External Link/Members Only -, and taken up and made into a viable product by the Japanese in the 1990s. "Another British discovery / invention that got away". To put it bluntly, nothing new has happened for the last 30 years.

External Link/Members Only
« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 08:11:49 pm by lostandfound »

Offline GreyDave

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,303
  • Likes: 78
  •  
  • Reviews: 109

You're entitled to your opinion.

But think of any big news story, any, you really think there'd be the same impact and understanding if it was someone just reporting from a studio? With no local pictures? From a face you trust?

It doesn't work that way for the vast majority. Whatever you may or may not think of Attenborough, he is trusted by millions to tell a story, and he can tell that story a lot better by being there and showing real pictures.

That's not to be confused with celebs being on some jolly under the guise of 'reporting' what they find.

1 ; Attenbough and his like are what is wrong with BBC ....the Old family network that gives way to WOKE ism ..
2; Much of whats filmed in these very cheap to make as oposed to Drama ect is made by other crews and edited together ( Maybe those people should get more credit)
3; Glossey pics of Whales penis`s what ever the size are getting boring !
4: There is no need fo him to travel around and like many I feel that a younger person could do job ....

Here is bottom line:  Planet doesnt give a fuck about us per se neither do Asteroids ( or hemeroids ) any natrulist will tell you 95% +++ of creatures that have lived are EXTICT...
Not Driving a Car eating fast food or short haul hols dinot save Dinosaurs and it wont save us either  :( :( Eventully some other bunch of blobs or insects will be next grand users of earth...

Offline Wadebridge

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 326
  • Likes: 0
  •  
  • Reviews: 7
Unless and until the likes of Attenborough radically modify their own behaviour IMO they have zero credibility asking others to modify theirs.
Yes, it would mean changes to the way his TV programmes are presented, which would reflect the big changes celebs like Attenborough demand others make.
BAU for the like of him means BAU for all - for that is what is happening. (Pace Covid).
Very well said fella.
This is indeed a powerful argument.
During the desperate 'internment' months of March and April 2020, one thing that I noticed, whilst most of us were skulking around at home, feeling miserable for ourselves, was the BAU of Channel 4, BBC, ITV's etc news reporting teams, particularly the roving reporters and their entourage; outside broadcast cameramen/ women etc; with the smiling, beaming looks on their faces, and the 'having the life of Riley' demeanor in their bodies.
Big, fat pay cheque still coming in at the end of the month.
And all the fresh air and freedom they could muster.
Lockdown must've seemed some phoney phenomenon, in some far off country, as far as they were concerned.
Banned reason: Posting on politics again despite previous 7 day ban.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline chrishornx

And the only 3 car companies profitable so far during Covid are Tesla, Toyota - and Porsche!

and BMW and Honda and.....

Offline lostandfound

and BMW and Honda and.....

Can you provide a link to your source for that statement please?

Here is a link to my source for the statement I made that Tesla, Toyota, and Porsche are the only three car companies to remain profitable.

Quote from: Autocar quoting Bloomberg
Bloomberg reports that Porsche is one of only three car companies that remained profitable during the first half of 2020, including Tesla and Toyota.

External Link/Members Only

Offline winkywanky

1 ; Attenbough and his like are what is wrong with BBC ....the Old family network that gives way to WOKE ism ..


Yes, but this is SKY TV we're talking about?  :dash:

Perhaps the usual, simplistic bash the BBC and the Licence Fee just won't cut it?  :unknown:

Offline winkywanky

2; Much of whats filmed in these very cheap to make as oposed to Drama ect is made by other crews and edited together ( Maybe those people should get more credit)
3; Glossey pics of Whales penis`s what ever the size are getting boring !
4: There is no need fo him to travel around and like many I feel that a younger person could do job ....

Here is bottom line:  Planet doesnt give a fuck about us per se neither do Asteroids ( or hemeroids ) any natrulist will tell you 95% +++ of creatures that have lived are EXTICT...
Not Driving a Car eating fast food or short haul hols dinot save Dinosaurs and it wont save us either  :( :( Eventully some other bunch of blobs or insects will be next grand users of earth...


Natrulists
with hemeroids...there's a programme in itself. Perhaps you should pitch it to Controller, BBC2?  :D

Well Dave, you are grey and possibly not long for this world, it seems rather churlish and selfish of you to have had the benefit of this beautiful planet thus far (perhaps you even fucked your way through the Swinging 60s?), yet you would deny it to the coming generations?

Harsh.

Offline winkywanky

Very well said fella.
This is indeed a powerful argument.
During the desperate 'internment' months of March and April 2020, one thing that I noticed, whilst most of us were skulking around at home, feeling miserable for ourselves, was the BAU of Channel 4, BBC, ITV's etc news reporting teams, particularly the roving reporters and their entourage; outside broadcast cameramen/ women etc; with the smiling, beaming looks on their faces, and the 'having the life of Riley' demeanor in their bodies.
Big, fat pay cheque still coming in at the end of the month.
And all the fresh air and freedom they could muster.
Lockdown must've seemed some phoney phenomenon, in some far off country, as far as they were concerned.


Job envy is never a pretty thing.

How on earth are journalists ever going to bring the truth to the masses without leaving their own house and visiting the subject of their reports?

Are you living in Cloud Cuckooland?

Offline winkywanky

You ask "Have they really plucked it out of thin air?". That has to be a rhetorical question. This government? What do you think?  :D

A sea change such as this is dependent on scientific discoveries which are as yet unknown, and then production engineering on a scale and complexity that is beyond the imagination of most people.

Can only bounce your final question back, you're wrong about battery tech unless you can provide evidence to support that? It depends on fundamental scientific discoveries which are capable of being developed into economically viable mass scale production which cannot be wished into existence by politicians and climate activists - or Elon Musk.

At the mo we are stuck with lithium ion chemistry, discovered at Oxford university nigh on 50 years ago - External Link/Members Only -, and taken up and made into a viable product by the Japanese in the 1990s. "Another British discovery / invention that got away". To put it bluntly, nothing new has happened for the last 30 years.

External Link/Members Only


From your own link:

Tesla is betting on silicon-based batteries to help provide a greater power density and longer cyclic life. But, for now, the consensus is that neither solid-state nor silicon batteries will move markets in the next five years.

“We don’t expect solid-state batteries to make a meaningful contribution to the global EV market until the late 2020s at the earliest,” Logan Goldie-Scot, head of energy storage at analyst group BloombergNEF, wrote in a recent article.

Research from the University of California and TU Munich in Germany predicts the cost of lithium-ion batteries could fall from $10,000 per kWh in the early 1990s to just $100 per kWh by next year. The US Department of Energy calculates that once battery costs fall below $125 per kWh, owning and operating an electric car will be cheaper than a petrol-powered car in most parts of the world.


15 years for cars which are cheap to run, clean and with a better range doesn't sound exactly unrealistic, does it?  :unknown:


Even big Oil Companies know they have to shift sides to not be left behind. They know the way things are going:

External Link/Members Only

Offline lostandfound


From your own link:

Tesla is betting on silicon-based batteries to help provide a greater power density and longer cyclic life. But, for now, the consensus is that neither solid-state nor silicon batteries will move markets in the next five years.

“We don’t expect solid-state batteries to make a meaningful contribution to the global EV market until the late 2020s at the earliest,” Logan Goldie-Scot, head of energy storage at analyst group BloombergNEF, wrote in a recent article.

Research from the University of California and TU Munich in Germany predicts the cost of lithium-ion batteries could fall from $10,000 per kWh in the early 1990s to just $100 per kWh by next year. The US Department of Energy calculates that once battery costs fall below $125 per kWh, owning and operating an electric car will be cheaper than a petrol-powered car in most parts of the world.


15 years for cars which are cheap to run, clean and with a better range doesn't sound exactly unrealistic, does it?  :unknown:


Even big Oil Companies know they have to shift sides to not be left behind. They know the way things are going:

External Link/Members Only

"The late 2020s at the earliest" is code for fuck knows when solid state batteries may become viable.

We have been flogging the same lithium ion horse for 30 years now. Gasoline has greater energy density than dynamite, and 70 times the energy density of a lithium ion battery. Lithium ion batteries installed in EVs with inter city range weigh half a metric ton and more.

Without a new technology making it out of the laboratory and into mass production EVs are hugely overweight compared to ICEs.

That also has implications for the environment. Activists are also after motor vehicles on the grounds of pm 2.5 particles shed by tyres. The heavier the vehicle the more rubber dust they shed.

Offline winkywanky

Rubber tyres are a totally separate argument, I hadn't even heard of that. But that applies to any car, regardless of propulsion.

It's quite clear that research into battery tech is now exponential, both for ecological and for commercial reasons.

The energy density you quote is the very area that is being looked at closely, how much energy you can store on in a given size of battery. Of course it is.

Would you rather no goals were set and that we simply carried on using fossil fuels?

Offline lostandfound

Rubber tyres are a totally separate argument, I hadn't even heard of that. But that applies to any car, regardless of propulsion.

It's quite clear that research into battery tech is now exponential, both for ecological and for commercial reasons.

The energy density you quote is the very area that is being looked at closely, how much energy you can store on in a given size of battery. Of course it is.

Would you rather no goals were set and that we simply carried on using fossil fuels?

What does that mean? Exponential? I'm guessing you mean there's a lot more of it. Thing is it is a very neglected field. Whereas ICE tech has come on leaps and bounds over many decades electrochemistry has been ignored. Can't just make up for many lost decades of R & D just like that. Science isn't a matter of wishful thinking.

At the mo there isn't a realistic answer to the comparatively low energy density of Li batteries. It's why battery tech is stuck in a rut and people are just hoping for that a eureka moment will happen.

Realistic goals are already being set and worked to by industry. The world's oldest car manufacturer, Mercedes, for example, has no plans to develop synthetic fuels for its mainstream production because its long term strategy is pivoting to EVs. But for the foreseeable future we need ICE.

Plucking silly targets out of the air, is just that - silly.



Offline winkywanky

What does that mean? Exponential? I'm guessing you mean there's a lot more of it. Thing is it is a very neglected field. Whereas ICE tech has come on leaps and bounds over many decades electrochemistry has been ignored. Can't just make up for many lost decades of R & D just like that. Science isn't a matter of wishful thinking.

At the mo there isn't a realistic answer to the comparatively low energy density of Li batteries. It's why battery tech is stuck in a rut and people are just hoping for that a eureka moment will happen.

Realistic goals are already being set and worked to by industry. The world's oldest car manufacturer, Mercedes, for example, has no plans to develop synthetic fuels for its mainstream production because its long term strategy is pivoting to EVs. But for the foreseeable future we need ICE.

Plucking silly targets out of the air, is just that - silly.


Yes, I do mean that.

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

Nothing silly about setting a 15yr target when so much research is being done now, and already yielding results.

If they waited five years and then set a 10yr target, everyone would say it's not enough notice.

You have to issue a statement of intent well in advance with something like this.

Offline lostandfound


Yes, I do mean that.

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

Nothing silly about setting a 15yr target when so much research is being done now, and already yielding results.

If they waited five years and then set a 10yr target, everyone would say it's not enough notice.

You have to issue a statement of intent well in advance with something like this.

It is silly when it is absolutist and extremist. Silly and foolish.

What results is research yielding? It's meaningless unless it translates to production. Research on nuclear fusion for power generation has been "yielding results" since the 1940s, yet it remains decades away from being useful.

Returning to the weight issue it matters wrt to EVs because they are so much heavier than ICE vehicles, and so emit more dust. Microplastic pollution is the new hot supermarket-plastic-bag. You read it here first!  :lol:

Yes Tesla's postponed battery day should be happening soon. And we may expect an incremental improvement to the Li batteries that Panasonic makes for Teslas. Not that Tesla know that much about them - the Panasonic areas within Tesla factories are off limits to Tesla employees.

One day there will be a generational jump in energy density, but as with nuclear fusion, at this point, there's no info in the public domain as to when that will happen. This year, next year, 2040  ...

Offline winkywanky

It is silly when it is absolutist and extremist. Silly and foolish.

What results is research yielding? It's meaningless unless it translates to production. Research on nuclear fusion for power generation has been "yielding results" since the 1940s, yet it remains decades away from being useful.

Returning to the weight issue it matters wrt to EVs because they are so much heavier than ICE vehicles, and so emit more dust. Microplastic pollution is the new hot supermarket-plastic-bag. You read it here first!  :lol:

Yes Tesla's postponed battery day should be happening soon. And we may expect an incremental improvement to the Li batteries that Panasonic makes for Teslas. Not that Tesla know that much about them - the Panasonic areas within Tesla factories are off limits to Tesla employees.

One day there will be a generational jump in energy density, but as with nuclear fusion, at this point, there's no info in the public domain as to when that will happen. This year, next year, 2040  ...


Well you think it's silly and foolish, I think 15yrs is a reasonable target to get things moving to reduce emissions to help save the planet. However many links either of us posts up, we'll never agree so it's a bit pointless trying to 'prove the other wrong'.


Offline lostandfound


Well you think it's silly and foolish, I think 15yrs is a reasonable target to get things moving to reduce emissions to help save the planet. However many links either of us posts up, we'll never agree so it's a bit pointless trying to 'prove the other wrong'.

To put in simple terms, when it is known that current battery tech is not adequate, and uncertainty when it may become adequate, to put in place a total ban on ICE vehicles at a date which is approximately two vehicle development cycles away (Merc / BMW etc renew their model ranges about every 7 years) is ill advised.

Offline winkywanky

To put in simple terms, when it is known that current battery tech is not adequate, and uncertainty when it may become adequate, to put in place a total ban on ICE vehicles at a date which is approximately two vehicle development cycles away (Merc / BMW etc renew their model ranges about every 7 years) is ill advised.


OK, what do you think the timescale should be, what should it be dependent on and at what point should it be implemented?

Offline lostandfound


OK, what do you think the timescale should be, what should it be dependent on and at what point should it be implemented?

As the EU have been doing, the gov should mandate emissions standards. Car manufacturers have to plan 20 years ahead so if a ban is to come in it should be late 2030s. And it should be a ban on ICE vehicles, but not hybrids ie part electric and part ICE - the current proposal is to ban all ICE vehicles including hybrids. And allow some carefully targeted exemptions so as not to destroy small and specialist makers.

Offline winkywanky

As the EU have been doing, the gov should mandate emissions standards. Car manufacturers have to plan 20 years ahead so if a ban is to come in it should be late 2030s. And it should be a ban on ICE vehicles, but not hybrids ie part electric and part ICE - the current proposal is to ban all ICE vehicles including hybrids. And allow some carefully targeted exemptions so as not to destroy small and specialist makers.


We're not talking about emissions here, we're talking aboout battery-powered cars.

At what point do you think batteries become fully viable (energy density figure) and how much notice do you think manufacturers should be given to fully go over to electric?

Offline lostandfound


We're not talking about emissions here, we're talking aboout battery-powered cars.

At what point do you think batteries become fully viable (energy density figure) and how much notice do you think manufacturers should be given to fully go over to electric?

My understanding is we are discussing the proposed ban on all ICE vehicles by 2035.

As I have been saying, at this point noone knows when batteries will have a generational / order of magnitude jump in energy density. At least that information is not in the public domain. On that basis it's impossible at this time to set a date.

Offline Wadebridge

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 326
  • Likes: 0
  •  
  • Reviews: 7

Are you living in Cloud Cuckooland?
Not at all squire. But as far as the status quo is ever likely to change, I might as well be.
How on earth are journalists ever going to bring the truth to the masses without leaving their own house and visiting the subject of their reports?
The whole point of his argument was that the public don't like being lectured on how they should behave, by celebs, TV stars, highly paid professionals etc who continue to live their lives in the same unswerving way that is precisely the polar opposite.
So yes , obviously someone has to go out on location to where the news story is to be gathered.
But the final cut needn't have been presented as if it was a live broadcast.
The film could instead have been shot, saved to PC, and played back from their device showing the presenter holed up in some claustrophobic 25' X 25' room in their hotel or accommodation or wherever.
Just anything involving a little bit of humility or thought, that might have given the public suffering cabin fever at home the impression that "we're all in this lockdown together".



Banned reason: Posting on politics again despite previous 7 day ban.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline cunningman

My understanding is we are discussing the proposed ban on all ICE vehicles by 2035.

I think it will be a ban on selling new ones.  I'm hoping there is a compromise for range extenders because that is what I would go for with even a very small generator and fuel tank - its just an emergency thing for topup on long journeys.

In any case, I think we can see that prices are falling and most of us don't drive far very often - so as long as a fleet of legacy ICE vehicles remains that we can rent when we need a long journey, I think it will be broadly OK.

I'm quite hopeful, anyway.  I think excitement about flow batteries was misplaced except for grid scale, but it does look like there will be advances in solid state batteries 'quite soon' and even a 50% increase on what we have now in energy density would be fine if the price per kwHr falls - I don't really care if the vehicle is heavy and doesn't drive like a sports car.

Offline GreyDave

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,303
  • Likes: 78
  •  
  • Reviews: 109

Yes, but this is SKY TV we're talking about?  :dash:

Perhaps the usual, simplistic bash the BBC and the Licence Fee just won't cut it?  :unknown:

The Licence fee should be abolished but as it is set by Govenment it wont be as each side will say the opposite :unknown: :unknown:
  Blue Planet ...BBC Sky Channel 4 and ITV all plauged by same familly ties  ,
 Snows Dimble... I have no problem with to inform and educate .from BBC but give well paid jobs to likes of  Liniker and others makes me anGrey ... :hi: :hi:
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 08:25:17 am by GreyDave »

Offline winkywanky

My understanding is we are discussing the proposed ban on all ICE vehicles by 2035.

As I have been saying, at this point noone knows when batteries will have a generational / order of magnitude jump in energy density. At least that information is not in the public domain. On that basis it's impossible at this time to set a date.

 
We were talking about the reality of battery power and its role in the ban, for about the last five posts  :lol:.

You've said the target is silly and extremist, I simply asked you by what criteria it ought to be set.

Or do you just think it shouldn't really happen in any case?

Offline winkywanky

Not at all squire. But as far as the status quo is ever likely to change, I might as well be.The whole point of his argument was that the public don't like being lectured on how they should behave, by celebs, TV stars, highly paid professionals etc who continue to live their lives in the same unswerving way that is precisely the polar opposite.
So yes , obviously someone has to go out on location to where the news story is to be gathered.
But the final cut needn't have been presented as if it was a live broadcast.
The film could instead have been shot, saved to PC, and played back from their device showing the presenter holed up in some claustrophobic 25' X 25' room in their hotel or accommodation or wherever.
Just anything involving a little bit of humility or thought, that might have given the public suffering cabin fever at home the impression that "we're all in this lockdown together".



Thanks for the promotion, when do I get the land?  :D

Attenborough is a journalist. He's presents scientific arguments. He's an expert in the field. He also happens to be very well known.

Are you saying his arguments have less veracity because he's well-known?

And where's his 'lack of humility' during Lockdown? Has he made a film about this from the South Pole? No  :rolleyes:.

Offline winkywanky

The Licence fee should be abolished but as it is set by Govenment it wont be as each side will say the opposite :unknown: :unknown:
  Blue Planet ...BBC Sky Channel 4 and ITV all plauged by same familly ties  ,
 Snows Dimble... I have no problem with to inform and educate .from BBC but give well paid jobs to likes of  Liniker and others makes me anGrey ... :hi: :hi:


Yes but why choose to introduce a spurious argument into this discussion when the reference was to a Sky piece?


....and Gary Lineker  :rolleyes:

Offline lostandfound


We were talking about the reality of battery power and its role in the ban, for about the last five posts  :lol:.

You've said the target is silly and extremist, I simply asked you by what criteria it ought to be set.

Or do you just think it shouldn't really happen in any case?

We've been discussing the proposed outright ban for many posts, and I've already answered those questions!   :lol:

Offline winkywanky

We've been discussing the proposed outright ban for many posts, and I've already answered those questions!   :lol:


No, you've said you disagree with the new rule.

But you haven't put forward an alternative.

That suggests that either you don't agree with the principle of battery-powered cars, or you just like moaning for the sake of it?

Offline lostandfound


No, you've said you disagree with the new rule.

But you haven't put forward an alternative.

That suggests that either you don't agree with the principle of battery-powered cars, or you just like moaning for the sake of it?

Asked and answered above in #81

Offline winkywanky

Asked and answered above in #81

As the EU have been doing, the gov should mandate emissions standards. Car manufacturers have to plan 20 years ahead so if a ban is to come in it should be late 2030s. And it should be a ban on ICE vehicles, but not hybrids ie part electric and part ICE - the current proposal is to ban all ICE vehicles including hybrids. And allow some carefully targeted exemptions so as not to destroy small and specialist makers.

No you didn't.

I asked you what a suitable point would be when batteries were good enough to be considered suitable for general use in cars (we were talking energy density, weight, range etc).

And when that point was reached, how long it would take to become widespread.

(By the way I don't see why 'small and specialist makers' would be exempt, what might be the criteria for that?)

Offline lostandfound

No you didn't.

I asked you what a suitable point would be when batteries were good enough to be considered suitable for general use in cars (we were talking energy density, weight, range etc).

And when that point was reached, how long it would take to become widespread.

(By the way I don't see why 'small and specialist makers' would be exempt, what might be the criteria for that?)

We were discussing the ban, and you asked what the timescale should be. I replied the mandate from the gov should be for emissions.

Small scale such as McLaren, Aston Martin, BAC, GMD etc. McLaren for example are committing to synthetic fuels which would be carbon neutral. Such advanced mechanical engineering and manufacture are one of the few bright spots in British industry and world leading, contribute to exports, raise the profile and prestige of the country, provide excellent high paying jobs etc

I have also already replied that the timescale for universally viable EVs isn't known because it will require an order of magnitude improvement in battery tech / energy density and noone knows when that may happen.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 10:10:28 am by lostandfound »

Offline winkywanky

You still haven't suggested what magnitude of improvement you think would be necessary.

ie what an acceptable energy density and weight might be.

Of course what would also need to be taken into consideration is the fact that the drivetrain in an EV would be lighter than that of an ICE, without needing a necessarily heavy engine. Electric motors are lighter, and also are distributed around the vehicle at the wheels rather than a lump under the bonnet.

I get what you're saying about the special expertise of Aston Martin et al, but of course that world-beating expertise and cachet could also be applied to EV. Perhaps if they really were truly carbon neutral then perhaps there could be a place for them. But then of course other companies would be applying for the same status so that might become difficult to justify.

Offline lostandfound

You still haven't suggested what magnitude of improvement you think would be necessary.

ie what an acceptable energy density and weight might be.

Of course what would also need to be taken into consideration is the fact that the drivetrain in an EV would be lighter than that of an ICE, without needing a necessarily heavy engine. Electric motors are lighter, and also are distributed around the vehicle at the wheels rather than a lump under the bonnet.

I get what you're saying about the special expertise of Aston Martin et al, but of course that world-beating expertise and cachet could also be applied to EV. Perhaps if they really were truly carbon neutral then perhaps there could be a place for them. But then of course other companies would be applying for the same status so that might become difficult to justify.

I've said an order of magnitude. That's precise enough. If you're really not familiar with that term please look it up.

As for weight a 1.5 - 1.6 litre petrol engine, which is becoming the norm for contemporary cars weighs under 100 kg. IIRC Tesla batteries weigh from a little under 500 kg to over 600 kg.

AM & McLaren will make EVs and hybrids - McLaren already has sold a hybrid model. Me and many other enthusiasts would want to know why they cannot also make carbon neutral fuelled ICE cars, and why UK expertise should be diminished versus other countries. Certainly other countries / makers like Porsche will be doing so, even as Porsche has knocked it out of the park with their first EV - the Taycan - which I suspect would be outselling the Tesla Model S if Covid had not impacted production.

How about you answer a few Qs for a change? What is going to be announced at the Tesla battery day?

Offline winkywanky

I've said an order of magnitude. That's precise enough. If you're really not familiar with that term please look it up.

As for weight a 1.5 - 1.6 litre petrol engine, which is becoming the norm for contemporary cars weighs under 100 kg. IIRC Tesla batteries weigh from a little under 500 kg to over 600 kg.

AM & McLaren will make EVs and hybrids - McLaren already has sold a hybrid model. Me and many other enthusiasts would want to know why they cannot also make carbon neutral fuelled ICE cars, and why UK expertise should be diminished versus other countries. Certainly other countries / makers like Porsche will be doing so, even as Porsche has knocked it out of the park with their first EV - the Taycan - which I suspect would be outselling the Tesla Model S if Covid had not impacted production.

How about you answer a few Qs for a change? What is going to be announced at the Tesla battery day?


I know what the term order of magnitude means, I do speak English as a first language.

Basically, you've shot down in flames the 15yr target for achieving full EV capability, but without specifying why or giving any real detail.

When you mention engine weight, you've purposely neglected to mention the weight of the rest of the drive-train in a modern ICE car, to enable a proper comparison with an EV car. Gearbox, drive-shafts, ancillaries etc. Not to mention the weight of a tank of fuel.

I don't mind you having an opinion but if you're not prepared to talk about why you have it then it's not really worth talking about it.

I'm not an expert in these matters but if you shoot something down like that and don't offer an alternative (or even simply say you don't like EV full-stop)  then we've discussed this all we can.

Offline lostandfound


I know what the term order of magnitude means, I do speak English as a first language.

Basically, you've shot down in flames the 15yr target for achieving full EV capability, but without specifying why or giving any real detail.

When you mention engine weight, you've purposely neglected to mention the weight of the rest of the drive-train in a modern ICE car, to enable a proper comparison with an EV car. Gearbox, drive-shafts, ancillaries etc. Not to mention the weight of a tank of fuel.

I don't mind you having an opinion but if you're not prepared to talk about why you have it then it's not really worth talking about it.

I'm not an expert in these matters but if you shoot something down like that and don't offer an alternative (or even simply say you don't like EV full-stop)  then we've discussed this all we can.

I have been prepared to talk about it. Where is your detailed exposition of why you believe the arguments I've put forward are not valid?

And your argument regarding weight is just silly. Similar to Covid overall deaths a simple and true measure is the overall weight of an EV versus an ICE vehicle, on which basis there is overwhelming expert evidence that EVs are much heavier.

Can only bounce this back. I've answered your points, maybe you should just admit that?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2020, 12:23:54 pm by lostandfound »

Offline winkywanky

I have been prepared to talk about it. Where is your detailed exposition of why you believe the arguments I've put forward are not valid?

And your argument regarding weight is just silly. Similar to Covid overall deaths a simple and true measure is the overall weight of an EV versus an ICE vehicle, on which basis there is overwhelming expert evidence that EVs are much heavier.

Can only bounce this back. I've answered your points, maybe you should just admit that?


Here's the way it works:

Govt has brought in a plan to go fully EV in 15yrs. It seems reasonable to me. You don't think it's workable. You profess to know a lot about it (perhaps you do) so I'm asking you to give a little more detail around why you don't think it can work. It may be of course that as a self-declared petrolhead you simply don't like the idea.

I'm trying to work out which of those it is, and also whether my own opinion might be changed (I also like cars, appreciate engines and have driven one 'performance orientated brand with a great heritage' for the last 25yrs).

And why even bring Covid into it? You just come across as someone who doesn't like being told what to do, even when it's for the general good (as decreed by govts all over the world). That's a legitimate standpoint but why not simply profess it if that's the case?