Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

However when you post hyperbole, you lose credibility not likes.

So whoever posted this little gem of hyperbole must be seriously lacking credibility.

Toyota seems to be doing everything possible to become known as one of the most despicable corporations on the face of the Earth.

Well that depends, has he or she got a history of posting hyperbole?
Or standing behind articles laden with inaccuracies?

I mean it was back in March? April? When you stood behind the article telling us all that chargers in Glasgow were not free, even though I told you through my own experience and with proof from the network running the chargers, it wasn't true.

I have to say, that damaged your credibility. 

It's like a plusses and minuses thing.
You post 5 good well thought out points, you get plus 5 credibility,  you then post silly hyperbole and you lose a point, and go down to 4.

When you target a user very obviously, you lose many more points.

You don't like Martyn, ok we all get it.

Cool, now can we move on without the hyperbole?

I think it was April but haven’t looked back. Did I actually say that all chargers were free?  I think the article said that Glasgow council had taken the decision to move from free to chargeable chargers. By all means trawl back through the posts and prove me wrong but at the end of the day we are arguing about semantics. Glasgow is presumably now rolling out paid chargers if it hasn’t done so already.

I don’t dislike Mart anymore than I dislike you. I don’t know either of you. I don’t like some of his posts but I like others. 

JKenH

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

If the argument for EVs is so overwhelming and the tax position so advantageous, why isn’t everyone driving one already?

It's statements like this that just make me sigh wearily. You know why: cost, availability, range of models, infrastructure, new technology, suspicion. etc. You also know how quickly the market is changing.

Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

That just made me chuckle because I predicted to myself that you'd come up with some such "I'm iconoclastic, free thinking, independent, against received wisdom, etc.".  But you didn't address the practicalities of a widespread hydrogen infrastructure and the difference now that we do have an increasingly established EV infrastructure which is what hydrogen has to compete against. The competition used to be ICE, but it isn't any more.

Toyota make good cars but they have backed the wrong horse, and they know it. Nobody is showing the slightest inclination in following them. Hydrogen may have a future in mobility but it will be based on depot based city buses and the like, not persuading the increasing number of EV owners that they don't really want to charge conveniently at home overnight (or with daytime solar for some of us).

PS: Just did a quick google: ~10k Mirai produced and sold worldwide by 2019, currently 8 car hydrogen refuelling stations in the UK.

I haven’t addressed the lack of fuelling stations but I acknowledge it is a problem in the Uk and needs to be addressed before the Mirai will register significant sales here. The thinking is that as commercial users (buses and trucks) take up HFC cars the filling stations will roll out. It’s not going to happen overnight but neither did EVs.

I think you will find that Hyundai have produced an HFC car as well.

You make a statement that Toyota “have backed the wrong horse, and they know it” but on what basis do you make that statement? Do you have some insider knowledge? Have they said that or is it just what you’ve heard on a forum? They have relatively recently launched a new version of the Mirai with longer range and at a lower price. Why would they have done that if they knew they had backed the wrong horse? You questioned my credibility so I do have to throw that back at you - can you substantiate that statement?

I am sorry but the competition is still ICE not EVs. I don’t recall the latest sales figures but IIRC pure BEVs are less than 10% of the market. I am surprised at how well EV sales have taken off but once one takes into account  the massive tax advantages you would expect anyone getting a company car or using salary sacrifice to have got an EV - it’s a no brainer. Maybe they can’t make them quick enough, I don’t know, but until production is ramped up they are still a very small proportion of new car sales. 

JKenH

Good night everyone. It’s been fun but I do need to make some money tomorrow to assist with the redistribution of wealth, hopefully in my direction. 

Solarchaser

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

I think you are a bit confused between being credible and being liked.

It's an Internet forum, who cares if people don't like what you post, that could be because it's uncomfortable truths, that would still make you credible. 

Ok, so the corollary to that is - because a post gets lots of likes it doesn’t make the author credible, just likeable? 😉 

Correct, likes does not equal credibility. 

When you quote things from an article, you are posting something that someone else has said, when you post something you write, that's something you are saying.

After years of being on these forums, I'm stunned you didn't realise that.

You think Martyn1981 is the writer for clean tekna??
If not, then your point has no merit and so loses you some credibility. 

Fair comment when you post an article/link from an independent journalistic source, e.g. BBC news, Guardian, Telegraph, Times etc. However CleanTechnica is not independent. It has an agenda and a bias towards new clean technology, against the old industrial order and promoting redistribution of wealth. 

Our mission at CleanTechnica is to catalyze the clean tech revolution through industry coverage with journalistic integrity.

Our vision is a radical mindset shift, and seeing the corrupt, old, clunky, and dirty economy fade away as the new one rises. We envision, within our lifetimes, a global economy based on renewable and clean energy, permaculture & reforestation, cellular agriculture, smallholder organic farms with smart technology, and electrified transit. We envision good employment opportunities for all, rather than wealth accumulation at the top 1%. And we envision distributed resources inherently moving us toward an egalitarian society. 

If you are going to regularly post politicised articles from a source like that then you must accept that you will be perceived to be aligning yourself with the content. Martin may not have penned the opening sentence quoted “Toyota seems to be doing everything possible to become known as one of the most despicable corporations on the face of the Earth” but he chose to post it. 

Anyway I wasn’t having a go at Mart, I was challenging the content of the article he shared.

I feel like this is going to shake you to your foundations, but I need to let you know, each of those organisations has an agenda, and a bias.
The tory graph,  express and mail, right wing.
BBC, government of the day, usually also right wing, as this is the way England votes.
Guardian,  left wing, like Labour, always in opposition. 

Sorry to break that to you.

Solarchaser

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

However when you post hyperbole, you lose credibility not likes.

So whoever posted this little gem of hyperbole must be seriously lacking credibility.

Toyota seems to be doing everything possible to become known as one of the most despicable corporations on the face of the Earth.

Well that depends, has he or she got a history of posting hyperbole?
Or standing behind articles laden with inaccuracies?

I mean it was back in March? April? When you stood behind the article telling us all that chargers in Glasgow were not free, even though I told you through my own experience and with proof from the network running the chargers, it wasn't true.

I have to say, that damaged your credibility. 

It's like a plusses and minuses thing.
You post 5 good well thought out points, you get plus 5 credibility,  you then post silly hyperbole and you lose a point, and go down to 4.

When you target a user very obviously, you lose many more points.

You don't like Martyn, ok we all get it.

Cool, now can we move on without the hyperbole?

I think it was April but haven’t looked back. Did I actually say that all chargers were free?  I think the article said that Glasgow council had taken the decision to move from free to chargeable chargers. By all means trawl back through the posts and prove me wrong but at the end of the day we are arguing about semantics. Glasgow is presumably now rolling out paid chargers if it hasn’t done so already.

I don’t dislike Mart anymore than I dislike you. I don’t know either of you. I don’t like some of his posts but I like others. 

Nope. Glasgow chargers still free bar around half a dozen of the hundred or so.

Hexane

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

You posted it on this forum, I'm not sure what a link to an article from clean teknika has to do with anything as clean technika doesn't post on this forum...

Mart posted quotes from and a link to an article on CleanTechnica.

What, just one article from CleanTechnica? 

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

Perhaps the real issue for the CleanTechnica crowd is that If FCVs work it will be the OEMs and the oil companies making money from it.  

Weird how you keep targeting CleanTechnica, but I suppose they would be classed as green & ethical.

Firstly, I thought the story was broken and published by The New York Times.

Secondly, why would the oil companies be making money from it, if it is using green hydrogen, since that will be derived from green leccy generation, which anyone can make.


Anyways, if you think the future is HFCV's, then fine, seems silly to waste time arguing about it now, time will tell (or perhaps already has).

Perhaps I “targeted” CleanTechnica because the article you posted was from CleanTechnica. Maybe the story was broken by the NYT but that wasn’t the article you quoted. Some quite strong views were expressed by the CT contributor and it was those (and CT’s declared policy to be negative about HFC road vehicles) I was responding to. 

Oil companies will be making money from hydrogen because they are the companies pushing it. It may be blue or grey at the moment but if they are the ones who put the infrastructure in place they will be the ones to benefit as hydrogen (blue grey or green) becomes more mainstream and will be the ones in a position to benefit from it. 

If, as you say, it is silly to continue arguing about it why post an article about it then continue arguing about it?

I don’t see why it has to be an “either or” with EVs and FCVs. Why do we have to have such a binary discussion? There is room for both just as there was room for petrol and diesel. There were diesel haters and diesel lovers and there are EV lovers and EV haters. Look at CDs and vinyl, we just can’t see the future. Choice is good.

It is only the ardent EV supporters and the oil company haters who feel the need to bash hydrogen and claim every attempt to promote the technology is to derail the transition to batteries. Maybe someone actually sees a commercial opportunity. 

Why not be excited that there is a new technology that might work out or might not. (It isn’t like nuclear fusion. FCVs work as a technology but face an uphill struggle to be commercially viable. Just consider how many people were dismissing  EVs 20 years ago (lack of range, too expensive, no charging infrastructure etc.) and look how that turned out.

Just keep an open mind. There is no need to make a call at this stage, (unless you are invested in one of the technologies); let’s see how it plays out. You may well be proved right (or you may be wrong) but it is too early to write the obituary just yet. 

That's a strange argument. You are trying to stick up for Toyota and their worldwide campaigning to slow down higher fuel efficiency standards and the move towards EV's, because you support choice for HFCV's even though you seem to stop short of suggesting they are actually a competitive technology. 

Nobody on here, as far as I'm aware is against fuel cells, nor HFCV's, but it's now abundantly clear that BEV's are the better choice for road vehicles, and the market is going in that direction.

Toyota having invested so heavily in HEV's and PHEV's and HFCV's (excellent examples of such vehicles), has now realised that that vast investment will almost all be wasted now as we move away from anything with an ICE, and HFCV's are not competitive - so they are openly campaigning to do harm, by slowing the transition away from FF's - and that has been picked up by the NYT, Cleantechica, etc..

It has nothing to do with being open minded, we're all open minded. It has nothing to do with giving PHEV's and HFCV's a fair shot, they've had that. It has nothing to do with stopping Toyota from pursuing PHEV's and HFCV's, if that's what they want, though it's odd that they haven't been rolling out the necessary infrastructure for the last 10yrs, whilst promoting HFCV's.

All it has to do with is being green and ethical, and calling out that which would slow down the transition to cleaner, greener and more sustainable transport.

ABrass

I suggest we drop the Hydrogen discussion again until there's actually any news for it?


Toyota campaigning against fuel economy standards was news, and disappointing news.

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

I think you are a bit confused between being credible and being liked.

It's an Internet forum, who cares if people don't like what you post, that could be because it's uncomfortable truths, that would still make you credible. 

Ok, so the corollary to that is - because a post gets lots of likes it doesn’t make the author credible, just likeable? 😉 

Correct, likes does not equal credibility. 

When you quote things from an article, you are posting something that someone else has said, when you post something you write, that's something you are saying.

After years of being on these forums, I'm stunned you didn't realise that.

You think Martyn1981 is the writer for clean tekna??
If not, then your point has no merit and so loses you some credibility. 

Fair comment when you post an article/link from an independent journalistic source, e.g. BBC news, Guardian, Telegraph, Times etc. However CleanTechnica is not independent. It has an agenda and a bias towards new clean technology, against the old industrial order and promoting redistribution of wealth. 

Our mission at CleanTechnica is to catalyze the clean tech revolution through industry coverage with journalistic integrity.

Our vision is a radical mindset shift, and seeing the corrupt, old, clunky, and dirty economy fade away as the new one rises. We envision, within our lifetimes, a global economy based on renewable and clean energy, permaculture & reforestation, cellular agriculture, smallholder organic farms with smart technology, and electrified transit. We envision good employment opportunities for all, rather than wealth accumulation at the top 1%. And we envision distributed resources inherently moving us toward an egalitarian society. 

If you are going to regularly post politicised articles from a source like that then you must accept that you will be perceived to be aligning yourself with the content. Martin may not have penned the opening sentence quoted “Toyota seems to be doing everything possible to become known as one of the most despicable corporations on the face of the Earth” but he chose to post it. 

Anyway I wasn’t having a go at Mart, I was challenging the content of the article he shared.

I feel like this is going to shake you to your foundations, but I need to let you know, each of those organisations has an agenda, and a bias.
The tory graph,  express and mail, right wing.
BBC, government of the day, usually also right wing, as this is the way England votes.
Guardian,  left wing, like Labour, always in opposition. 

Sorry to break that to you.

No, foundations all good, thanks. Interesting you perceive the BBC as currently being right wing. I’d agree with the others. The ones I mentioned however do have pretty high standards of reporting. I think they are all likely to stop short of suggesting Toyota is one of the most despicable corporations on Earth.

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

However when you post hyperbole, you lose credibility not likes.

So whoever posted this little gem of hyperbole must be seriously lacking credibility.

Toyota seems to be doing everything possible to become known as one of the most despicable corporations on the face of the Earth.

Well that depends, has he or she got a history of posting hyperbole?
Or standing behind articles laden with inaccuracies?

I mean it was back in March? April? When you stood behind the article telling us all that chargers in Glasgow were not free, even though I told you through my own experience and with proof from the network running the chargers, it wasn't true.

I have to say, that damaged your credibility. 

It's like a plusses and minuses thing.
You post 5 good well thought out points, you get plus 5 credibility,  you then post silly hyperbole and you lose a point, and go down to 4.

When you target a user very obviously, you lose many more points.

You don't like Martyn, ok we all get it.

Cool, now can we move on without the hyperbole?

I think it was April but haven’t looked back. Did I actually say that all chargers were free?  I think the article said that Glasgow council had taken the decision to move from free to chargeable chargers. By all means trawl back through the posts and prove me wrong but at the end of the day we are arguing about semantics. Glasgow is presumably now rolling out paid chargers if it hasn’t done so already.

I don’t dislike Mart anymore than I dislike you. I don’t know either of you. I don’t like some of his posts but I like others. 

Nope. Glasgow chargers still free bar around half a dozen of the hundred or so.

The decision to start charging (which is what I was referring to) was taken in April to start from May 1st. I imagine there are hardware changes to be implemented. It’s coming. 

https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/electric-car-charging-fees-introduced-20336627