Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

EricMears

silverwhistle wrote: »

It is, but what the poster fails to mention, surprising if he actually has an EV, is that the expensive ones are the fast ones: the sort you'd use when you're going distances. I can't remember the last time I used a motorway or even trunk road service station for petrol on the same principle of extra cost.

There are growing numbers of slower, destination chargers, at supermarkets, restaurants, hotels and the like, sometimes offered free (e.g. Sainsburys Waterlooville as I type) and others at more reasonable cost.

I keep an eye on the growing numbers of chargers as I'd like to get an EV, but it will be when the second hand markets expands a bit and I'd then have to make parking in my front garden. No way am I spending 30p a unit at the fast charger in my village!


Edit: I see this point has since been addressed.

Actually, I do own an EV but didn't mention it in that post because it wasn't really relevant.

Whilst it's true that the most expensive chargers are 'rapid' ones (rapid = approx 50 KW DC) there are many 'fast' chargers (7KW AC) which charge more than 30ppu although luckily there are many 'fast' chargers that are free to use. For a guide to location and pricing of chargers, see:-
https://www.zap-map.com/live

I've never paid anything at a 'fast' charger but have occasionally paid 30ppu for a 'rapid' charge on a motorway (buying just enough to get me home or to a cheaper outlet)

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Actually that statement is again wrong, it's ambiguous. Our contribution to current 'annual' contributions is 1%. Our current contribution to the AGW increase in global CO2 levels is 5%..

No it's not.....

The UK's current contribution to global CO2 emissions is approximately 1%.

......in fact it couldn't be any clearer.

One could almost believe that you want the figure to be higher so that you can indulge yourself in an even bigger guilt trip.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Big article on that yesterday if you're interested. First Big Tobacco, then Big Oil, and now Big Auto - such a waste, especially when we are so close. Big Auto better move fast as the disruption curve for BEV's is closing in on the steep part of the "S".

The Conspiracy Against Tesla … Is Too Obvious

Hi

Decent article, maybe could have mentioned that the efforts were little more than a delaying strategy though! .... apart from that, the main point I picked up was Texaco's reported position in the battery sector ... odd that, wonder if it fits into a pattern?! ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

No it's not.....



......in fact it couldn't be any clearer.

One could almost believe that you want the figure to be higher so that you can indulge yourself in an even bigger guilt trip.

Hi

Maybe you could support the above assertion by referencing a recent report, similar to what I supplied recently, then maybe Mart could do the same & the basis of the misunderstanding could be highlighted?!

I believe that I know which datasets both positions are based on & where the issue lies, but as a logical approach is often overlooked in any entrenched discussion I think that it's simply time for parties to simply provide some form of support for their arguments, in other words it's time to either 'put-up or shut-up'!

May I suggest that a suitably titled debate thread in opened to spare those with little interest in the percentage difference (which is reducing anyway!) and the counter position arguments are put to the wider community as opposed to digging trenches to throw insults as opposed to standing up and attempting to prove a position, however implausible the idea may be!

HTH
Z

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Maybe you could support the above assertion by referencing a recent report, similar to what I supplied recently, then maybe Mart could do the same & the basis of the misunderstanding could be highlighted?!

I believe that I know which datasets both positions are based on & where the issue lies, but as a logical approach is often overlooked in any entrenched discussion I think that it's simply time for parties to simply provide some form of support for their arguments, in other words it's time to either 'put-up or shut-up'!

May I suggest that a suitably titled debate thread in opened to spare those with little interest in the percentage difference (which is reducing anyway!) and the counter position arguments are put to the wider community as opposed to digging trenches to throw insults as opposed to standing up and attempting to prove a position, however implausible the idea may be!

HTH
Z

The issue is that one of us is quoting 'current emissions' & the other is countering by quoting 'cumulative emissions'. As you have indicated, both assertions are correct based on the scientific evidence available.....this disagreement is both pedantic & pretty stupid.

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

The issue is that one of us is quoting 'current emissions' & the other is countering by quoting 'cumulative emissions'. As you have indicated, both assertions are correct based on the scientific evidence available.....this disagreement is both pedantic & pretty stupid.

Hi

As you say relating to the the disagreement, it's "both pedantic & pretty stupid", particularly so considering that one side's basis is likely that used for a chart around half a decade ago & the other is based on data derived from a flawed supposition regarding apportionment by energy sources ...

... can we put this one to bed now & just accept that even various 'official' sources currently don't fully agree with each other, with some even having considerable presentation inconsistencies when using their own datasets if you have time to dig deep enough!

HTH
Z

JKenH

1961Nick wrote: »

The issue is that one of us is quoting 'current emissions' & the other is countering by quoting 'cumulative emissions'. As you have indicated, both assertions are correct based on the scientific evidence available.....this disagreement is both pedantic & pretty stupid.

There are more and more of these long fights breaking out and I know not everyone will see it like this but the same person is invariably involved. I had an acquaintance,nice guy, who raced karts, always at his home circuit. In every race he ended up in a collision with someone, usually a visiting driver as those who knew him gave him space, and it was always their fault, as his friends would of course confirm. I had to point out that there was one common factor in every crash - him.

I am increasingly of the view that one should just make one’s point then gracefully bow out or as some might say light the blue touch paper and wait for the explosion. When the authorities come after you as they surely will just ‘plead the fifth’.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

The issue is that one of us is quoting 'current emissions' & the other is countering by quoting 'cumulative emissions'. As you have indicated, both assertions are correct based on the scientific evidence available.....this disagreement is both pedantic & pretty stupid.

To be clear, both of us were talking cumulative, as you quoted cumulative emissions originally:

1961Nick wrote: »

£1T is a lot of money when you consider the UK is responsible for about 1% of global carbon emissions.....that's about 1.4ppm out of a total concentration of about 400ppm (260ppm are naturally occurring).

It's only recently that you have decided to 'mis-inform' the thread by claiming otherwise. So please stop pretending you were referring to annual emissions.

Secondly your statement:

1961Nick wrote: »

The UK's current contribution to global CO2 emissions is approximately 1%.

is ambiguous, it could be read as currently meaning annual, or currently as in the additional sum added to date, which is cumulative.

But all of that is irrelevant, your original claim that cumulative* emissions are only 1% is false, it's 5%.

*We know you meant cumulative because you didn't refer to annual rises which are 'only' a few ppm's per per, but to the whole increase from 260ppm to 400ppm which is the cumulative rise from the start of significant FF burning.

Please note, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with yourself, as I have quoted your clear and unambiguous original post.

Also note that your response to my providing a link to support the 5% figure, was your unsupportive, AGW denial claim that scientists don't agree on the figure.

Do you stand by your original statement that only 1%, 1.4ppm of the additional 140ppm is due to UK emissions?

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

There are more and more of these long fights breaking out and I know not everyone will see it like this but the same person is invariably involved. I had an acquaintance,nice guy, who raced karts, always at his home circuit. In every race he ended up in a collision with someone, usually a visiting driver as those who knew him gave him space, and it was always their fault, as his friends would of course confirm. I had to point out that there was one common factor in every crash - him.

I am increasingly of the view that one should just make one’s point then gracefully bow out or as some might say light the blue touch paper and wait for the explosion. When the authorities come after you as they surely will just ‘plead the fifth’.

Are you suggesting that false claims, AGW denial, FF apologies etc should go unchallenged?

Perhaps if people stuck to the truth we wouldn't have any of these long fights and could talk about RE in the news, not defend the indefensible.

BTW - as I see it, you seem to always be involved, even if only stirring the pot?

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Maybe you could support the above assertion by referencing a recent report, similar to what I supplied recently, then maybe Mart could do the same & the basis of the misunderstanding could be highlighted?!

HTH
Z

Hi Z, hopefully I have supported the position by quoting the actual text, not just making statements, and my response to that original post includes reference to the 5% figure. So all info provided as far back as 6th June.

As you know, I like facts, links and data over false claims and nonsense - your call!