Electric vehicles miles per KWh

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Do you have a spreadsheet to keep track of who's thanking who & for what? Tbh, I wouldn't have a clue....and I doubt Ken has either!

For goodness sake Nick, will you just let it go!!!! :rotfl:

PS - No spreadsheet, just noticed that you three were all happily egging each other on, when I was being 'digged'. I guess you've now lost your sense of humour.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

For goodness sake Nick, will you just let it go!!!! :rotfl:

PS - No spreadsheet, just noticed that you three were all happily egging each other on, when I was being 'digged'. I guess you've now lost your sense of humour.

It just seemed very weird that someone would have that information at their fingertips.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

It just seemed very weird that someone would have that information at their fingertips.

Hiya Nick, it's on the bottom of the posts, or to put it another way, at our fingertips. HTH.

But, as you say, not worth laughing at Ken anymore, if he wants to thank GA's posts denying AGW, then that's up to him. I suspect everyone is now aware of who's doing what and why.

And I also suspect that you no longer value GA's comments and opinions highly, as you seem to have open eyes now. In fact, i think one of your comments is the simplest and best one on this thread summing up GA's arguments perfectly:

1961Nick wrote: »

Only you could make your point by artificially trebling the cost of electricity & knocking 66% off the cost of petrol/diesel.

We may not share all views and opinions, but I think we both see the man behind the curtain.

All the best.

Martyn1981

Back to BEV's and batts.

This video from the father and son team at Tesla Time News is, I think, very interesting and worth watching the first 20 mins, though the last 5-10mins is just about getting US government and legislation to move.

It looks at the idea of electrifying US school bus' which number nearly half a million. It mentions the impacts of diesel fumes on IQ and even test results on the children.

It broadens out into the use of older batts, no longer able to meet high car demands, but capable of the 30-40 miles per day school buses do, and then the use of this enormous battery resource for grid balancing, and mopping up peak generation PV.

Sorry to spoil it all, but many might not be interested, but it also suggests how vehicles like these could be used in disaster situations, providing transport of goods and people, shelter and on-site power.

[If they seem a bit 'clueless' it's their presentation style, to pretend not to understand, so that they can explain things.]

The Magic School Bus | In Depth

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Nick, it's on the bottom of the posts, or to put it another way, at our fingertips. HTH.

But, as you say, not worth laughing at Ken anymore, if he wants to thank GA's posts denying AGW, then that's up to him. I suspect everyone is now aware of who's doing what and why.

And I also suspect that you no longer value GA's comments and opinions highly, as you seem to have open eyes now. In fact, i think one of your comments is the simplest and best one on this thread summing up GA's arguments perfectly:



We may not share all views and opinions, but I think we both see the man behind the curtain.

All the best.

Mart, I am just wondering why you need to continually keep referencing me in your posts. Is it because I have been ignoring you and you think I don’t love you any more?

JKenH

[QUOTE=Martyn1981;76246507
.

[If they seem a bit 'clueless' it's their presentation style, to pretend not to understand, so that they can explain things.]

The Magic School Bus | In Depth[/QUOTE]

No, they are just ‘clueless’.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Nick, it's on the bottom of the posts, or to put it another way, at our fingertips. HTH.

But, as you say, not worth laughing at Ken anymore, if he wants to thank GA's posts denying AGW, then that's up to him. I suspect everyone is now aware of who's doing what and why.

And I also suspect that you no longer value GA's comments and opinions highly, as you seem to have open eyes now. In fact, i think one of your comments is the simplest and best one on this thread summing up GA's arguments perfectly:



We may not share all views and opinions, but I think we both see the man behind the curtain.

All the best.

I respect GA's right to have an opinion & to share it.....I don't necessarily have to agree with it. Some of the stuff he posts is utter rubbish imo (AI stuff), but amongst the nonsense there are some thought provoking threads worthy of discussion...this being one of them.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And his little campaign became tiresome long ago. If the three of you have now had enough, then that's fine with me. Cheers. [BTW - on the wind thread Ken is thanking GA's posts denying AGW. But you can defend him if you like.]

But, if GA posts anti-RE nonsense, then I'll pushback, if Ken denies any anti-AGW action(s) by the FF companies I'll pushback, if you try to deny or defend the illegal actions by VAG, I'll pushback. This is a green and ethical board, not a dirty black lies board.

Below is the thread from GA that I thanked that has so upset you?

With regards to global warming I've already stated my views
I think humans definitely impact the world (at every level) especially through land use
I just don't think it's likely to be anything other than a very slight net movement either positive or negative and the impact will be negligible and that we will have the tech and productivity to geoengineer whole planets let alone nudge a temperature one or two degrees up or down

So I don't worry about it because it's a negligible problem with easy solutions down the line

I also don't like the posturing and nonsense and holiness about it all
I'm pro helping people and you can do this in many ways like helping the poor develop or giving to charities not by patting your back about how great you are because you stuck some Chinese panels on your roof and were paid to do it. Come over here let me pat you on the back....well done Marty well done you




GA is not denying AGW. He simply says humans have had an impact on the planet at every level and especially through land use. I agree entirely with that. Look at what is happening in the Amazon now. That should be a concern to you but you don’t mention even though you are supposedly concerned about AGW. Instead you post childish YouTube videos promoting conspiracy theories about Tesla.

The consensus is that AGW is happening but there is no real consensus as to when and how badly it will impact. In the meantime new technologies develop - carbon capture etc - and with the passage of time more new technologies will develop. We just can’t predict the future any more than Malthus could. It is likely that the end of the world (as we know it) will come from some new as yet undiscovered source. 100 years ago many of the technologies we have today were mere science fiction and they even may be our undoing eventually.

I agree with what GA says about the posturing and holiness when so few of us on here are prepared to give up our everyday comforts that rely on continued burning of !!!!!! but lecture others about morals and ethics.

And I agree with his comments about us all patting ourselves on the back for installing solar panels for which many of us will be paid handsomely many times over.

As Nick said, some of GA’s ideas are a bit way out (for now) but he certainly has made us think with his two most recent threads about wind curtailment and the efficiency of EVs.

So what exactly has upset you so much about me thanking GA that you feel the need to make an issue out of it?

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

GA is not denying AGW.

Actually he's been quite open about his denial of AGW, and also his denial of the health impacts from FF pollution.

JKenH wrote: »

I agree with what GA says about the posturing and holiness when so few of us on here are prepared to give up our everyday comforts that rely on continued burning of !!!!!! but lecture others about morals and ethics.

Sorry, I thought you'd been posting all that .... I'm getting confused ....... really hard to tell you two apart now.

But here goes - what we need is government action. What we do as individuals is of course important, but major change has to be driven by national and international changes.

Your repeated attempts to sell this spin argument that people have to act a certain way before they can ask for change, or in my case, celebrate RE and BEV's, is nonsense.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Actually he's been quite open about his denial of AGW, and also his denial of the health impacts from FF pollution.

That wasn’t what he was saying in the post I thanked. I view each post on its individual merits not on who the poster is or what he has said in the past. If you look back you will see I have thanked you for some of your posts even though I disagree with others.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But here goes - what we need is government action. What we do as individuals is of course important, but major change has to be driven by national and international changes.



Your repeated attempts to sell this spin argument that people have to act a certain way before they can ask for change, or in my case, celebrate RE and BEV's, is nonsense.

It’s not nonsense at all. Only a hypocrite would argue that. Celebrate REs and BEVs by all means but your posts go beyond that countenancing no truck with anything but a pure RE world.

You can’t do anything to help the environment until the government pays you to do it - really? C’mon Mart, you know its just an argument you make to ease your conscience. I only give you a hard time about your own lack of action to reduce your CO2 emissions because you insist everyone has to dance to your idealistic tune; no !!!!!!, no compromise, no pragmatism. When you start calling people AGW deniers while doing little in practical terms to cut your own emissions you will get some ‘push back’ as you say. Which is the better approach - to take practical steps to reduce emissions while retaining an open mind on AGW or to preach AGW (no ifs, no buts) while sitting on your hands waiting for someone else to solve the problem?

As GA says ‘green is just a colour’. There are many shades of green - it isn’t all just about AGW. Some people are very worried about plastics, others destruction of environment, loss of insect species, genetic engineering, animal welfare etc. Other people are more concerned of the threat to humanity from non green issues such as terrorism, antibiotic resistance, AI or nanotechnology etc. You may believe AGW is the end of the world but we have other problems to deal with as well.

Your passion is AGW, I understand that but this forum isn’t solely about AGW and just because GA and I don’t worship in the same church as you doesn’t mean we are stupid, bad, or uncaring about what happens to the world. We see the world slightly different to you, our values don’t quite align with with yours (or probably with each other’s for that matter).


My views, though, shouldn’t be that far removed from most on this forum when it comes to RE but like GA I don’t regard RE as a religion (no pun intended) or that anyone who suggests anything than 100% RE is a heretic and should be burned at the stake (metaphorically). As GA has said, the grid is already solved. We have a mix of generation that works. There is room to displace some more FF generation but 100% VRE is not going to work. There is a practical limit to how much wind or solar the grid can accommodate but to suggest just that risks being branded as an AGW denier. Thus we end up with polarised argument and tribal posturing.

On BEVs, I am all for them (as is GA) and want one myself. I think Tesla probably make the best EVs but I am pragmatic about them and have not got caught up in the hype about the Model 3. I don’t though buy into the conspiracy theory and you pushing that has made me a little sceptical as to your objectivity objective where Tesla are concerned.

Where you and I really differ is in our view of the role that !!!!!! have played in the past and will continue to play in the near future. I believe they have on the whole been a positive force for good giving us a standard of living that couldn’t be imagined without them, whereas you believe they are bad and take great delight at the legal action that you hope will bring the FF industry to its knees sooner rather than later. I also believe they will be an important part of our energy mix for some time to come.

We are never going to agree on that so how are we to move forward? If you want to continue posting articles celebrating the progress of litigation or the economic collapse of the FF industry in the west then maybe you might want to do so in a factual manner rather than gloating if you want to avoid comment coming back you don’t like. It may be your intention to draw out the ‘FF apologists’ as you call them as you like a good scrap but is that what everyone else wants?

I know you and your AGW coterie enjoy your adversarial style of posting but is everyone else on the board of the same mind? I had for several days avoided responding directly to your posts to avoid this very situation we are in today but as Nick pointed out yesterday you did appear to be baiting me and you continued today so here we are.