Maybe UK govt are not crazy

joefizz

spadoosh wrote: »

Do we not call this a railway?

Or trams even, the things that used to run from the city centre to walking distance from my house a hundred years ago!

Solarchaser

Ah, that's the issue.
The ice lovers dont realise it's not like standing filling 70l of deisel at at fuel station with the wind and rain blowing through you.
They dont realise you plug it in and walk away.

I now have an image of great troll standing in the driving rain holding onto the granny charger for the leaf for 8 hours muttering about nuclear district heating

GreatApe

Solarchaser wrote: »

Ah, that's the issue.
The ice lovers dont realise it's not like standing filling 70l of deisel at at fuel station with the wind and rain blowing through you.
They dont realise you plug it in and walk away.

I now have an image of great troll standing in the driving rain holding onto the granny charger for the leaf for 8 hours muttering about nuclear district heating

Both are easy to do filling up petrol or diesel once a month takes just five minutes to do

The problem is okay price BEVs have too short a range just 85 miles on the motorway in winter with an e golf isn't practical you'd have to stop every hour for a 45 mins charge. No thanks

The longer range models like the mode 3 cost too much for most people

And despite all the hype the reality is ICE sales still vastly outnumber BEVs and will do so for a very long time

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

PS - If you think I'm being at all aggressive in my response, then pop yourself in my shoes for a second, as I've being responding to the same false claims you are making, for around 5yrs, and I think it's incredibly rude and aggressive to post such inflammatory and false information on a green and ethical board when you simply don't know what you are talking about.

I don't disagree with the content of your reply ... but imo it was unnecessarily hostile. Why do you need to pick a fight by posting stuff like; "Again, complete gibberish" ... "I get bored with negative nancies posting hysterical negative nonsense" ... "you simply don't know what you are talking about". You finish it off by implying that he has no right to be posting on a public forum!

Martyn1981

leviathan wrote: »

You are being rude and agreesive in your reply which was uncalled for since I was being neither. Yep, I made a mistake on the KW vs KWh since a leaf inst going to charge in such a time. So sue me.



However if it is as simple as you claim (and your numbers are open for dispute, you can't siumply say grid losses are only 8% without proof and oh yes I can go find the link which says they are between 10-15% but I CBA) why is everyone in the industry up in arms about the grid and generation not having enough capacity?


Then we are only talking about cars. Trucks need to be on the road every day for 200+ miles. That isn't going to work if they need to be on charge. Since you've been on this for around 5yrs plus what the answer to that?
And all teh things with do with hydrocarbons that can be done with electricity but at a huge cost in energy terms./



TBH I haven't the time or energy to nit pick your response. I haven't devoted 5 years to thinking about it unlike yourself. But you've taken best case scenarios as people usually do to try and make their point and it bores me. I could come back, correct my mistakes and so on. But I realise you are a zealot with 5 years of his life wasted arguing about it, thus I wont waste my time further.


My apologies for triggering you.

Clearly you haven't thought about it, that's why all your claims and numbers were false, misleading and astonishingly negative.

As to your claim of not being rude, may I repeat that you have come onto a green and ethical thread and spread nothing but false information, hardly ethical, and also posted:

leviathan wrote: »

PPS: the cost of building nuclear power stations and the subsidies for the price per MW also dont factor. If we are serious we need to stop all that crap and nationalise power production and charge at cost. Nuclear should not be run for profit, no energy should. Dont even start on RE which is a transfer of wealth exercise and has nothing greeen about it other than virtue signalling. Same as FiT's and solar PV.

This is not green, it's an attack on green energy, and done in an extremely rude and false way. And in this post you actually attack me as a 'zealot' and claim I've wasted my time for knowing what I'm talking about, and for challenging your false claims.

If you want to chat facts and reality, then I'll respond patiently and politely, but all you've done is attack RE and BEV's with a pack of lies .... 30 nuclear powerstations ..... and rather than admit that all of your information is false, you have only doubled down each time.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

I don't disagree with the content of your reply ... but imo it was unnecessarily hostile. Why do you need to pick a fight by posting stuff like; "Again, complete gibberish" ... "I get bored with negative nancies posting hysterical negative nonsense" ... "you simply don't know what you are talking about". You finish it off by implying that he has no right to be posting on a public forum!

I appreciate that you and the other two Amigos are open to denial, or diet denial, but I personally don't understand why you want to tolerate or support entirely false information, being spread on a green and ethical forum, that undermines the reality of both RE and BEV's.

If the information is presented as fact (not friendly discussion) and is total gibberish, then isn't it better to rip off the band-aid?

It's also interesting that you didn't find any of leviathan's posts hostile or picking a fight. Do you agree with any of his claims, do we need 30 nuclear powerstations, will BEV's be charging at 40kW at home, will they need a full 40kWh charge each day, are distribution losses 15% or 8%? Are any of my numbers 'best case' or carefully detailed averages based on facts and reality?

It seems to me, that your role on here is actually to attack me any time I defend Green and Ethical issues, and undermine false information, lies and AGW denial. Perhaps you would like to defend VW again and claim that they did nothing particularly wrong and that the whole industry was well aware of what they were doing?

In line with your 'role' on here, I note your last sentence which is not only a complete lie, but clearly designed to misrepresent what I have said, and falsely imply I've suggested he has no right to post on here. Anyone can post, but misinformation should be challenged, even if it does upset you so much, every time.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I appreciate that you and the other two Amigos are open to denial, or diet denial, but I personally don't understand why you want to tolerate or support entirely false information, being spread on a green and ethical forum, that undermines the reality of both RE and BEV's.

If the information is presented as fact (not friendly discussion) and is total gibberish, then isn't it better to rip off the band-aid?

It's also interesting that you didn't find any of leviathan's posts hostile or picking a fight. Do you agree with any of his claims, do we need 30 nuclear powerstations, will BEV's be charging at 40kW at home, will they need a full 40kWh charge each day, are distribution losses 15% or 8%? Are any of my numbers 'best case' or carefully detailed averages based on facts and reality?

It seems to me, that your role on here is actually to attack me any time I defend Green and Ethical issues, and undermine false information, lies and AGW denial. Perhaps you would like to defend VW again and claim that they did nothing particularly wrong and that the whole industry was well aware of what they were doing?

In line with your 'role' on here, I note your last sentence which is not only a complete lie, but clearly designed to misrepresent what I have said, and falsely imply I've suggested he has no right to post on here. Anyone can post, but misinformation should be challenged, even if it does upset you so much, every time.

You could try just challenging the information rather than the person as well?

ABrass

leviathan wrote: »

Then we are only talking about cars. Trucks need to be on the road every day for 200+ miles. That isn't going to work if they need to be on charge. Since you've been on this for around 5yrs plus what the answer to that?

The Rivian will do 200miles for the entry level pickup truck and 400+ for the top battery version. EVs are simple, add more batteries. The only downside is cost, which is falling very fast and faster than any mainstream report projected.

My apologies for triggering you.

The people who throw phrases like that and 'Its political correctness gone mad' are generally those who want to be rude without anyone being allowed to call them rude.

GreatApe

ABrass wrote: »

The Rivian will do 200miles for the entry level pickup truck and 400+ for the top battery version. EVs are simple, add more batteries. The only downside is cost, which is falling very fast and faster than any mainstream report projected.

It isn't just batteries

More batteries equals more mass requires a stronger frame requires stronger suspension and the wheels take more punishment from the additional mass causing more wear and potentially more wheel damage

And while costs are down they are still substantially higher than an ICE car

Petrol Golf £18,664 with 600 mile winter motorway range
E Golf £26,143 with just 85 mile winter motorway range

If you assume 15% of the cost of the petrol golf is the ICE and subsystems that's
ICE = £1,866
BEV = £9,365

Accepting a £2000 premium of prices fall 10% a year it would be around 2028 where BEVs catch up

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

You could try just challenging the information rather than the person as well?

As could you.

However that's not important to you is it? What we see on here is a post from Levaithan that is complete and total gibberish, yet I responded politely and gave all the correct information and data to show it was complete gibberish.

Then he responded with more gibberish, and ended his post with an insulting paragraph against RE.

You did not criticise his post.

So, as he'd opened the door, I then spoke truthfully and called his gibberish ...... gibberish. That seems fair and reasonable. I also pointed out how rude it is to post anti RE gibberish on a green and ethical board, that seems reasonable too.

His response was to insult me for having taken an interest in the subject, and for knowing what I was talking about.

At that stage you stepped in, as you always do when I push back on a G&E board against black lies, to attack me again, as you have been doing since the spring.

Perhaps you once again want to claim that my support of mitigation spending (what is happening all over the World), will bankrupt the UK as we spend every pennny of GDP on it for the next 30yrs - or perhaps you might want to stop lying with false claims about what I've said, or what I mean, and start acting in an appropriate manner on here.

You might chose to lie again, and falsely claim I'm denying someone the right to post on a public forum, but where I'm looking, the only person(s) doing that are you (and Ken) with your repeated attacks against me for defending RE and the truth.

So, pull you neck in Nick, if you want friendly chats, then I'm your man, but if you defend anti-RE gibberish, spread AGW denial, or post lies about me, then I will continue to push back, even if you 'don't like it up em!'