Guest post by Howard Cox
- 13 MPs and Lord Lilley have endorsed a ground-breaking new report from the APPG for Fair Fuel for UK motorists and UK hauliers. It brings to the attention of decision makers that UK’s 37m drivers also want clean air to breathe. But at the same time to show that the current unilateral Government policies for road users, whilst on the surface seem laudable, are instead set to be damaging for the economy and the Nation’s role in ‘helping out’ with global climate change.
- APPG Chair, Craig Mackinlay says: “The only thing that’s protecting the Government from electoral harm on this matter is the seeming Westminster consensus and lack of courage to stand up to the climate fanatics and say: enough! Sooner or later the public will rebel against this madness. Better to have the rational debate now before we fully embark on a failing and expensive experiment.”
- The Government should immediately remove the threat of the 2030 ban on the sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles. Instead, they should incentivise the move to clean fuels by motivating industry and entrepreneurs to develop technologies that will not impact adversely on the economy, drivers, or businesses. Allow the market to dictate what clean fuel technology is best and affordable for all drivers, not through a very costly, divisive ineffective Government mandate.
The APPG Report Highlights:
- 7 Practical Recommendations to lower emissions without banning new diesel and petrol vehicles by 2030.
- A plethora of expert opinions on recent Government edicts and their effective ways to reduce emissions and avoid economic doomsday.
- Several questions of the Government on behalf of UK’s 37m drivers as to the viability and cost of the Government’s unexpected target date to ban new fossil fuelled cars and vans in 2030.
- A ‘cradle to grave’ review of Electric Vehicles compared to Petrol/Diesel driven Transport. Highlighting safety, production, electricity supply and practicality of EVs.
- Whether the Government has truly recognised a fair and equitable replacement for £35bn of annual Fuel Duty and VAT.
- The largest ever survey of road user opinion that back a series of recommendations from the APPG as to meeting the needs of reducing vehicle emissions without adopting the Government’s highly unpopular road user policies. 50,000 took part.
- A better way to lower vehicle emissions than using ineffective ‘Pay to Pollute’ policies and cliff edge vehicle sales bans.
The Chair of the APPG, Craig Mackinlay MP said: “In producing probably one of the most authoritative reports on the subject ever written, we have listened to thousands of road users, from cyclists, bikers, motorists, through to our vital frontline and essential much undermined commercial vehicle drivers.”
“We have put together a range of recommendations to Government that are both constructive and economically viable to help reduce emissions without hurting 37m drivers or UK’s economy.”
“It is imperative we bring the majority of the electorate along with us in the changes being demanded of them. Not using a ton of un-consulted millstones. It must be through consultation and consensus and a rational debate about the cost and alternatives. That will mean compromises on all sides of the green agenda. Above all, using common sense and practical, achievable solutions.”
“We have shown evidence in this measured report that the current Government Road user transport plans are at best unwise and worst of all, ill-advised. It is not too late for a change of overall policy. A change that will be supported by the majority of the electorate, businesses, and all road users for a long time to come.”
Sir John Redwood MP said: “There is a lot of common sense in the APPG Fair Fuel Report. Greener transport needs to work for the people it wishes to attract as users. You cannot get to work or run the children to school on a government target. Government needs to explain how these changes are going to be better, popular and affordable.”
Julian Knight MP said “This policy was wrong headed from the start, dreamt up in the kitchen diners of Notting hill, with no understanding of real people’s daily lives. It’s clear that the switch to electric will cause more environmental damage than running clean diesel. What’s more who is to say electric won’t be superseded soon making this whole costly charade a waste of time and money.”
Andrew Lewer MBE, MP said: “This is a serious and well-researched report that should force policy makers to face facts and to level with the British public about the costs – to them – of bans on petrol and diesel vehicles and the timescale intended for this.”
James Sunderland, MP said: “I welcome the recommendations of this report that highlights the need for a viable move to clean fuels that does not impact adversely on the economy, drivers or businesses. We must also ensure that all road users are involved in the development of road transport strategy and so I particularly support the idea of a Road User Consultative Group. I urge policy makers to consider very carefully the recommendations of this well-researched and informative piece of work by the Fair Fuel APPG.”
Other quotes from 12 MPs and a Lord including Steve Baker, Sir Greg Knight, Andrew Bridgen, Philip Davies, Bob Blackman, Karl McCartney, Graham Stringer, Sir John Hayes, and Lord Peter Lilley can be accessed at https://fairfueluk.com/APPG-FFUK/4/ and https://fairfueluk.com/APPG-FFUK/6/
Howard Cox, Founder of FairFuelUK and Secretary to the APPG said: “The economic recovery would collapse if fossil fuelled car use is squeezed through these needless cliff edge bans. Motorists did not vote for the Green Party in the General Election. But that is what we have got. There also, seems to be a deliberate policy to divide road users under the cover of a well-financed ill-informed emotive green agenda.”
“Why hasn’t the Government produced a full post Covid recovery cost benefit analysis as to the impact of the 2030 ban and the unpopular push to drive electric, on the economy, UK’s drivers, specifically low-income motorists and small businesses? Most of all, they must dispassionately demonstrate their policy will achieve lower vehicle emissions and be more beneficial than the mammoth cost of implementing the ban itself. What are they scared of, if they believe this policy is so right? Dozens of backbench MPs, have told me they are very uneasy with current road transport polices and their inevitable negative affect on their constituents.”
The APPG Report has been produced by the APPG for Fair Fuel for Motorists and Hauliers, with considerable editorial and research input by Howard Cox, Secretary to the APPG and Founder of the FairFuelUK Campaign.
The APPG Report can be downloaded at https://fairfueluk.com/APPG-FFUK/
FairFuelUK is backed by the RHA & Logistics UK. Other contributors to this report include the Alliance of British Drivers, the Motorcycle Action Group, and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Report Contributor Contacts include:
- FairFuelUK Campaign – Howard Cox, Report Editor
- Alliance of British Drivers – Paul Biggs
- Motorcycle Action Group – Lembit Opik
- GWPF – Harry Wilkinson
Background: Since 2011 the APPG for Fair Fuel for UK Motorists and UK Hauliers has examined major issues that impact on UK drivers. Along with FairFuelUK, it has been a major influencer on keeping Fuel Duty frozen since 2011. As well as fuel taxation, other issues addressed by the APPG that impact on drivers, have included congestion charges, ULEZ/CAZs, parking costs, roads investment, unfair treatment for fossil fuelled vehicle owners, solutions to lower emissions, cleaner fuel incentives, alternative technology options and transparent pricing at the fuel pumps. With the expected decline in Fuel Duty revenue, the APPG will also formulate a long-term approach to the future of road taxation and a positive transport strategy for all road users.
Oh no, some rational thinking .thats why the report never made it on the BBC
It’s great to finally see some pushback on this global stupidity. Sadly, this is so entrenched that they whole heartedly accept the idea of “low carbon” and “cleaner fuels” ( meaning clean as in less “carbon” ).
Entrenched is the right word , we could see the motor industry complaining that ” we have invested billions in research and development on ev” yet there are still many new ice being made and sold, = there will need to be a scapegoat, I can help i can think of many.
Sue the greenies
Make them live their own baloney fantasies. That ought to shut them up. I want to know how they’ll cook anything without gas or electricity, never mind keep food safe without a refrigerator or freezer.
Only deliver to them food made to their standards of energy consumption. Three weeks later, about, problem should be solved.
And at true cost.
Stupidity all around
“The UK’s Government plans to unveil a hydrogen-powered town by 2030.
Industry estimates put the cost of hydrogen for home heating at around three times that of natural gas.
Hydrogen for home heating could cause four times as many explosions and injuries than gas boilers, according to a government-backed study.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2021/08/04/hydrogen-boilers-could-cause-four-times-many-explosions-gas/
Ah, so we want to avoid another Hindenburg episode, but — well, helium is inert, so what do we do now?
To be called “Mushroom Cloudton”!
Your choice is a either a hydrogen or lithium based bomb attached to the side of your house.
You decide.
It only takes five minutes to concoct some wacky green policy. It takes years to assemble the evidence to counter the fantastic claims made.
Not to mention the untold BILLIONS in cost!
Whereas “clean” in reality means less NOx. We must be the only generation actively planning to eliminate the one element that is fundamental to the existence of life on earth. We are all carbon-based life-forms. What they mean, of course is “carbon dioxide” which is almost as bad because without that life would cease to exist and I’m almost sure that’s not the plan. Though I’m not taking bets!
No CO2 means no plants means dead planet.
My thought exactly. They still accept nonsense as fact and still think a “solution” is one of “mitigation” as if humans have any effect on, and are able to control, the Earth’s climate – when we have yet to gain anything close to a complete understanding of all of the driving forces behind it and have control over none of them.
Meanwhile, “clean fuel” doesn’t exist as they mean it, and gasoline fueled vehicles are already quite clean, so much so that indoor air is generally more polluted than outdoor air in major US cities today.
Natural gas is no solution – it lacks the energy density of gasoline, and must be compressed in order to provide enough for comparable “range,” meaning every CNG powered car = a bomb when involved in an accident.
Hydrogen can’t be safely contained, is corrosive on fuel system components, and involves the consumption of more energy than produced when burned as “fuel,” being the “Elizabeth Taylor of elements.” Similar issues of “compression” would also apply as with NG.
So they continue to preach that we need a nonexistent “alternative.” Wake me up when atomic powered cars and houses become a thing.
Amen. Quite some years ago now, my parents got a petrol to LNG car (because the govt subsidized the fuel). It worked well enough, with a switch allowing you to change between fuels. You had to plan long journeys in advance for the few refuelling stops, but no huge problem.
All these years later, where are they? I don’t see any.
It probably went the same way as all the other planet-saving schemes will: When the real costs become apparent to the National Treasury, these silly green schemes will be dropped ASAP.
The real problem will be the economic damage caused by kowtowing to innumerable demands of ‘environmentalists’ who understand neither economics nor science&engineering.
That is because the BBC is institutionally socialist.
I think your being to generous.
It isn’t. Or why do so many people in Guardian comments say it is Tory biased? (and the opposite on sites like this)
BBC news has a strong pro-Conservative bias. But it also has a strong pro-econutty bias. The two are not mutually incompatible as Cameron and Johnson have shown. Sky News is the same.
Look at how the BBC reported on the huge wins in councils and mayoral elections for Labour earlier this year. Hardly mentioned because Hartlepool’s UKIP voters swung to new UKIP (Con) in a By Election.
And a few weeks later when the Tories lost a seat in a By Election because of a swing away from them… nothing. Forgotten in less than 24 hours.
The BBC is why the Tories lead in the polls – amongst the elderly who still watch the BBC.
Because in the USA, “Bugger Business” anti-industry politics is associated with a wing of the Democrat Party (not the unionised rust-belt obviously) then the Green is viewed as left-wing. Thus the BBC is seen as left-wing
But in the UK, where the Conservatives are so right-wing that they openly propose a “hostile environment” for immigrants and cut social security for tax relief on millionaires inheritance, the BBC is seen as right-wing.
That is why the US and UK sites differ.
You mean “Johnson and Carrie”!
This isn’t the first wife or partner that the current PM has had. There is no reason to think the current wife has any more influence than the rest did.
Heh – good joke. The previous partners of the PM were not trained lobby group activists with eco activist agendas – this one is.
This is the first one to be at the core of government. Cameron’s wife was as bad but I don’t think he was as easily led as Boris.
Oh, come on, you know Princess Nut-Nut has got a stranglehold on Bojo’s um, nuts.
You also know that Nut Nuts has no real concern for the environment, just to virtue signal and earn a fantastically luxurious life style out of it.
No environmentalist would to a quarter of a million pound of luxury renovations to a small flat using high end products with the least efficient and most elaborate production methods known to man.
“No environmentalist…l
Every self styled environmentalist would do so, Rules for thee and not for me. And while the work was being done by cheap imported labor they would be jet setting around the world in their private jets, yachts, or SUVs.
ROFLMAO!
If you want to see extreme left-wing bias you only have to look at the BBC’s comedy output https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/12/bbc-accused-comedy-bias-research-shows-75pc-slots-taken-anti/
Fair point about the comedy. But by definition, that’s not meant to be taken seriously.
I gave examples of pro-Tory bias from the News department.
TBH no one takes the News at the Beeb seriously
ICYMI: BBC (Woman’s Hour specifically) just this week suggested considering making “age-appropriate” pr0n for teenagers.
Take what you will from that.
The problem is that the Labour and Conservative parties are just two different flavors of socialism.
There are no conservative parties in Britain, just parties that are less socialist than the others.
In fact there is no such thing as a conservative party, from Genghis Khan’s perspective.
I don’t know what Genghis Khan’s politics were, and neither do you.
You are using the standard left wing conceit that if they were bad, they must be conservative.
Such an assumption just indicates that once again, you prefer feelings to thinking.
M Courtney, you seem to live in a different country to me. I’ve read, and respected, many of your comments before, but I can’t imagine Margaret Thatcher putting up with this kind of twaddle.
There is nothing ‘c’onservative about the BBC. When did you last hear them say anything positive about British history, the Christian roots, traditional family values, or anything that a definition of conservatism would espouse?
It seems obvious to me, as well as a lot of other people, the the “Conservative” party has been gradually captured and taken over by globalist one world government ideologues and puppets of the Davos crowd.
bbc is socialist, just like you lie spewing liar.
Because the Guardian is staffed by and read by communists.
Um, duh griff! Communists always call socialists right-wing
“It isn’t. Or why do so many people in Guardian comments say it is Tory biased? “
Guardian readers griff? You do realise that the vast majority of them are, well, mentally unstable?
For example
“Dylanwolf
We’ve turned our back on the World. We’re now a grubby little country with the grubby little morals of starving rats. It’s a long road back to decency.”
Britain could be taking the lead in tackling the climate crisis. Where’s the ambition? | Keir Starmer | The Guardian
And there’s no hint of irony in this..
“orionsway16
“Consider the power of a human to create a narrative to fit their mental framework regardless of whether it meets reality or not. Hitler! “
The left do like him even though they claim the opposite.
sailbadthesinner1950
Genuine question; I need a new central heating boiler. Do i buy the one that costs over £10,000, takes up to 24 hours to reach maximum heat and won’t keep my house really warm in winter but will give me lots of brownie points with some people? OR Do I buy the system for £2,000 which will heat my whole house in an hour and run itself for half the price?
orionsway16 -> sailbadthesinner1950
Based on the way you’ve phrased your question, clearly you should do whatever destroys the planet the quickest. Happy now?”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/04/climate-change-crisis-environment-politics#comments
I wouldn’t take what they say seriously.
On any wide forum you can find nutters.
Guilt by association isn’t a good enough argument.
But at least you have put up an argument rather than just abuse.
“On any wide forum you can find nutters.”
The Grauniad is very strict on what can and cannot be said.
But then you knew that, right?
Komment Macht Frei. I’m proud to have been banned several times for telling the truth.
Griffy – open your eyes for once you poor deluded fool. The BBC IS socialist, with far left sympathies. However they are also institutionally biased towards the government of the time – both as part of the establishment and as a survival mechanism. That they can maintain this duality at one and the same time is testament to their arrogant, lying, two-faced duplicity – they have practiced to deceive since their inception and, after all that time, have got reasonably good at it. Time they lost their special status and had to compete in the real world – my bet is they would either change rapidly or be unable to cope and shut down.
Griff’s eyes are wide open. He is paid by the CCP to spew these lies.
The Guardian?
The only people on their website are communists, eco-loons, and an architectural student who mis-typed “Gaudian” into her search engine.
To an out and out communist, everyone else is a conservative.
The British BS Co = the fake news factory.
Because Tory is not conservative – more like Marxist Leninist.
Oh Griffy, everyone here knows that you are paid to lie in these comments.
You might find this interesting John if you haven’t already seen it….
” never made it on the BBC”
Facts and truth don’t cut it in the narrative driven media age.
Nigel Farage is raising this issue on GB News as we speak.
Farage talked to people from both sides – good points made for the report and baseless waffle bordering on outright lies in support of EV’s.
Thats good news ,thanks Richard.
I can at least partially understand Biden’s support for this lunacy, because he is senile and demented, too, but what is the UK’s excuse? The idea has been studied and tested until the cows come home, and we all know, by now, that it just isn’t going to work! Is dementia catchable?
Is philosophy catchable? Is religion catchable, ? Both are mind sets ,both are fundamental to the green blob ,so dementia not to my knowledge, but the very essence of religion is belief, faith a understanding that is impressed particularly on the weak,the busy, we see many parallels with religion and the green blob its advocates impress upon you, us .which is very much catchable. We can also draw many parallels with the philosophy of the nazies, in the wider context of the green blob.
The other point of view on Farage’s show was the CEO of a green think tank – apart from the usual lies and misinformation, his main point was that, as the whole world was going green, the UK should do the same – even be one of the leading countries. No examination of whether it was a good thing, achievable or even desirable – just that if the whole world was jumping off a cliff, he wanted the UK to be one of the first to go.
The whole world is not going green, only the western world. Griff’s bosses in China are perfectly happy to help us self destruct while they go on building coal power plants.
Energy looks likely to be in short supply in future as we pay tribute to the weather gods and hope they will reward us with wind or solar power.
So what’s not to like about EV’s? Buy a couple , park them in your drive and sooner or later they will spontaneously combust and provide a blazing fire, suitable for roasting marshmallows and keeping your family and the rest of the neighbourhood warm for 2 or 3 days
You have to love the advertising campaign for EVs on the box , some self opinionated 40 something ( I’m wiser than you) dick driving around in a ev = join the smart set you know it makes sense.
would you like to give me the stats on worldwide EV spontaneous fires over the last 5 years?
Would you like to tell us who records this data, griff? The UK doesn’t.
Griffy missed the part about that recent lithium battery fire. He’s out of touch.
Permanently disconnected, IMHO
Gtiff is always missing what’s important, else he wouldn’t be griff as we know hm 😀
The Guardian didn’t cover it, therefore it didn’t happen.
One would be too many. And there’s been far more than one!
Vehicle Fires – UK Fire Service ResourcesVehicle Fires
Every year in the UK, over 100,000 cars which equates to nearly 300 a day go up in flames and around 100 people die as a result. Around 65% of these fires are started deliberately to cover criminal activity, to make a fraudulent insurance claim or as an act of vandalism. One in 12 reported stolen vehicles will be burnt out.
Many other vehicle fires break out simply due to a lack of basic maintenance and can be prevented.
======
thats 35% not due to criminals!
At least you can put a regular petrol/diesel fire out – fast.
Tesla Battery Fire Under Control After 3 Days
Oh half runt, you’re not embarrassed at all to spout this tripe?
This is the same variety of sophism as when your ilk justifies k!lling endangered raptors with windmills because cats k!ll sparrows.
The best one is when eco-loons say more birds are killed flying into windows. I tell them to get back to me when they’ve found a workable alternative to windows
You can also point to the number of windows in the country, vs the number of windmills.
That would be using common sense Mark. The thermaggedonists don’t do common sense
And with those startlingly clear cut statistics of yours, can you tell us all whether the EV battery fires were the work of criminals or not? Can you tell us all what percentage of those fires were ICE and which EV – broken down in the 65/35 ratio that you have helpfully drawn our attention to, of course. Can you, in fact, use those statistics to make a relevant contribution to this discussion?
And how many of the 35% were lack of maintenance?
For the most part, ICE vehicles only catch fire after a crash.
BTW, poor maintenance is a good way to guarantee an EV fire as well.
And how many of that 35% were spontaneous?
Australia just managed to put one out, after it spewed massive amounts of toxic smoke into the atmosphere, another one destroyed a roadway overpass in California, yet another burned down 3 houses in New York state, there were two in the aftermath of the Ahr Valley floods a couple of weeks ago in Germany and an EV bus was left to burn out on a street in South Africa as the firefighters were busy putting out the fires you socialist a$$holes started all around the city. Yea, EVs never just burst into flames, except when they do, and with more being pushed onto our streets more of them will.
“Australia just managed to put one out”
As far as I know the fire brigade did not put it out. They stood by and monitored the fire until it burnt out naturally.
Those who stand and watch fight fire also. Sounds like something Churchill would have said.;}
It is an article of faith with the clapping monkeys that lithium batteries and cars using them for power are excessively dangerous. I don’t think there are data to show this, but even if you had data, they would not accept it. The clapping monkeys do share something in common with the climate alarmist groupthink. In the end, some level of common sense will prevail and if the cars are unsafe, something will be done about it.
Last time you were here you actually tried to defend your religion using propaganda and made up numbers. That data was quickly shredded by those more in touch with reality than you and your friends.
This time, instead of actually trying to present data, you just make naked assertions and insult anyone who doesn’t worship as you do.
Trolls are capable of learning.
Something will be done about it.
You have said hat before, and many of your leftist loon friends say the same thing about doing “something” to make whatever work. But it is always something that would not be needed if you and your ilk weren’t pushing unreliable electricity sources and ridiculous electric cars, and using “other peoples’ money” to both subsidize the cars and unreliable electricity sources, and the “something” that “will be done about it” will be done with “other peoples’ money”. As with socialism, “renewable energy” and all of its problems are being paid for at exorbitant prices by money confiscated from people who in no way want this crap.
When Arizona had a ballot initiative to go to some ridiculous % of “renewable” energy by whenever the AG had, as part of the explanation the phrase “regardless of the cost”. The initiative failed by a substantial margin. Tom Steyer, a billionaire who has made much of his money from “unreliables” and was behind the initiatives spent massive sums to defeat the guy at the next election. In Nevada, the same election cycle, the same initiative passed, but the “regardless of the cost” phrase was not on the ballot. When people KNOW such is the case, they WILL NOT vote for it.
Margaret Thatcher: “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Griff, go away, look up the definition of “joke” then get back to us
Once again, you’re not keeping up, griffter.
Here’s a quote from an article just yesterday on recent EV fires.
“Chevrolet last year advised owners not to charge their vehicles overnight or keep their fully charged vehicles in garages.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/04/tesla-fire/
Here’s an article from just 3 hours ago about a Tesla that caught fire while charging several months ago.
“A California couple’s Tesla caught fire while charging overnight, ignited another Tesla next to it, and caused a massive house fire. They haven’t been home in 8 months.”
https://news.yahoo.com/california-couples-tesla-caught-fire-154040409.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
“Caravanning can be as simple or as luxurious as you choose. My own experience is probably not dissimilar to that of many families across the country who also share this hobby.
It best suits those who enjoy the freedom of being able to take to the open road and end up in any number of interesting and beautiful places. “ – Margaret Beckett [Labour] MP
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2007/may/26/saturday.camping
Word is that most if not all EVs cannot tow a caravan…
“We are all aware of the severe range restrictions of EVs. Although the stated range of a car may typically be around 200 miles, the practical range will probably be little more than 100, allowing for a sensible safety reserve. Estimates suggest, however, that towing a caravan reduces the range by half, maybe as little therefore as 50 miles.
What then are holidaymakers supposed to do if they want to travel, say, to Cornwall? A 300-mile trip would require six recharging stops, each probably involving at least two to three hours spent in queues. (Just think typical bank holiday traffic!).
In practice, the journey would probably take three or four days, with recharging taking place at overnight camp sites. By the time you got to Cornwall, it would be time to come home
You cannot automatically assume that your new EV will even be capable of towing. Indeed most EVs are not legally allowed to tow at all. One problem is the weight of the battery, which naturally restricts the weight the car can tow. There is also the problem of the strain put on certain components, such as the brakes and the electric powertrain.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/06/17/evs-caravans/
Presumably people who holiday with a caravan will have to upgrade to a Shire horse?
Poor old JC will be put in a intolerable position ,as a self confessed caravan hater, yet the very thing he hates may save the very thing he loves the internal combustion engine
They can, just not particularly far. If you don’t mind caravanning at the other end of your street, they’re great for towing.
No they can’t
” Indeed most EVs are not legally allowed to tow at all. “
Really?
“Most electric cars are not type-approved for towing “
Can you tow with an electric or hybrid car? | Auto Express
Apparently, the Tesla X is approved – assuming you can afford one… (Tesla Model X on-the-road prices RRP from £90,980)
…and the paraphernalia that goes with it.
A trial of a Tesla that could tow .. more than 2x energy per km when towing the caravan; the 4WD in the comparison increased 1.8x L/100km when towing same caravan but made it home without refuelling and you could pack more in the 4WD.
I think it was tested in Australia up & down the bells line of road (round trip each). So yes, YMMV.
I did find this test by carsguide that may be what I remembered.
https://www.carsguide.com.au/adventure/tesla-model-x-74243
This test said the Tesla could carry more cargo & energy/fuel usage was 2x vs 1.63x.. unreliable memory?
May be a similar test has been done several times.
Sounds about right.
My car will take me 1,000 miles on a single tank of diesel. Towing a caravan typically adds only 10% to the fuel usage, diesel engines having much more torque than petrol engines. That’s 900 miles before refueling.
Wake me when an EV can do that.
So put together the APPG recommendation for a balanced approach to fuel and emissions with the WATTS prior article about some additional CO2 in the atmosphere (some of it anthropogenic?) greening the earth, and the light is shined on the zero emissions crowd and their phony net zero schemes. That’s right the CAGW crowd wants to switch to EV’s without any consideration how to actually acquire and distribute the E part of the EV, and while doing so want to un-green (brown-up?) the earth! President Joe Biden (or whoever writes that stuff he struggles to read on the teleprompter) just declared the goal of half EV’s by 2030 for America, good luck with that. The CAGW crowd strays further from Reality on a daily basis.
I just wrote professionally about the 1m tonne shortfall in Lithium by 2030 to support 30% EVs when 2.5m tons will be required for car batteries. Bear in mind 2018 production was 85,000 tons globally. The shortfall is unprecedented in commodities. All it can mean is massive price rises for battery metals and EVs made unaffordable to anyone but the wealthy. That is where this idiocy is taking us. NTW, this doesn’t include the battery metals needed for other uses like grid stability. The future is defo you will have nothing and be happy and this climate nonsense is a key part of that narrative.
The EV battery industry have openly stated that they estimate the European (and UK) shortfall to be about 25% by 2030, even with the yet-to-be-built gigafactories across the EU and UK. I think that’s still an underestimate. The spokesman for the gigafactory to be built in Redcar (I believe) was hopeful that development in the next 8.5 years would solve all of the problems. There is a colossal amount of wishful thinking in all of these plans.
A simple remedy for the present air pollution problems has been available to us for 50 years or more: build cars, lorries, ships and aircraft with LNG fuelled motors which emit only water vapour and CO2!
Blame the Green Brigade for the global air quality problems!
even lng emits nox just like diesel and partially burnt hydrocarbons just like petrol
‘LNG fuelled motors which emit only water vapour and CO2!’
LNG motors only emit water vapour and CO2 if they use oxygen rather than air. Air is about 70% nitrogen and at the temperature of combustion some nitrogen oxides will form.
The city of Poitiers in France has GPL (LPG to UK readers) powered buses in the city. These go very well with pavement café food and drink. The nearby city of Limoges has trolley buses.
Both city centres virtually diesel fume free despite the dominance of diesel as a fuel for cars and vans. In my opinion the main source of diesel pollution in UK cities comes from public and commercial deliveries.
I have downloaded the report and sent a copy to my MP, if you are a UK resident please do the same. It’s about time this zero carbon nonsense was called out, and no-one in politics should be able to claim “I wasn’t informed.”
Believe me I would, but my MP is a complete waste of space.
In fact most of her time is taken up with fraudulent expenses claims.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Labour
Tells you a lot about the demographic here in Tooting.
My MP contributed to the report so I think he is already aware (although with him being a career politician, I wouldn’t care to bet on it).
I would do what you ask, Shark, except that my MP (Jeremy Hunt) is even worse than fretslider’s. I first wrote to him on this issue in 2008, and he failed to reply or even acknowledge.
Anyway, I was pleased to find that (through my response to Howard Cox’s survey) I actually wrote a paragraph of this report! Page 59, first comment. I don’t come from Blackheath, but those are certainly my words.
My main comment on the report itself is that it fails to separate the issues of air pollution and CO2. They are two separate “battle fronts.”
Done on purpose. Most people want clean air, so the Greenies try to confuse Co2 with pollution, hoping most people are too uninformed to know they are being lied to.
Perhaps you might refer to him as Rhymes With”?
H/T Tim Roth in Tin Star
The 2030/35 ICE ban will bump into reality and the dates will be put back just like the gas boiler ban date has been.
Any government/party which tries to enforce these bans will find themselves out of office at the earliest opportunity.
But it isn’t just about emissions of noxious gas and particulates as this seems to suggest: it is also about cutting CO2.
And that is absolutely necessary: the UK is already seeing negative climate change effects in the form of exceptional/damaging heavy rain events/floods.
I wonder who they got submissions from, since there was no publicity asking the general public to contribute…
“it is also about cutting CO2.And that is absolutely necessary: the UK is already seeing negative climate change effects in the form of exceptional/damaging heavy rain events/floods.”
Do you have a peer-reviewed link for that? 😉
If there was a “peer reviewed link,” it wouldn’t matter, since oodles of junk science is “peer reviewed” yet doesn’t survive the slightest bit of scrutiny under the microscope of logic and reason.
No he doesn’t – all that poor deluded fool has is a worn and overused link to the abject failure that is the politically biased UK Met Office. Ignore him – he’s been whining about the same wrongheaded idiocy for days now – his mental health problems mean that this phase will end soon and he’ll focus on something new.
He keeps repeating this lie that the latest floods were “exceptional” (sic). They were only exceptional in that they don’t happen every year; even worse ones happen every 50 years or so in each specific location. Which means every few years somewhere in Europe.
Wrong as usual, griffy. There is absolutely no proof or even a believable hypothesis that CO2 has any effect on climate. What you greenie loons need to realise is that we need far MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, to move it away from its present dangerously low level.
I think most on this site know that temperatures are rising. You claim it is not due to CO2.
1) its natural cycles – what is the high temperature likely to be in this cycle, it has not peaked yet and since the 60s it has risen by ~1.5°C
2)its natural cycles – what is the cycle length?
3)its natural cycles – There has to be a reason for these cycles. What is it please?
4)climate has always changed – true, but the current change is very abrupt and does not give flora and fauna to adapt. Why is it so abrupt?
5)climate has always changed – but society has changed more quickly; large cities built a few metres above sea level; population way to big for all to have the wests standard of living; Water shortages; Floods! etc. adaption of society to the next climate temperature maximum (whenever that happens) will be impossibly expensive. it is worth looking at flooding maps to see how difficult it will be to protect infrastructure from this natural climate change e.g. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts (noaa.gov) for the US
It would be better to hope that climate change is manmade we can then fix it!!!
And just to prove how clueless the model fans are….
It would be better to hope that climate change is manmade
So, it isn’t settled after all.
“the current change is very abrupt”
Incorrect. There is no evidence to support the idea that recent warming is outside bounds of historic, natural variability. Proxy data cannot resolve much at less than thousand year intervals (Marcott et al 2013). Splicing high a resolution series onto a lower resolution series does not make your case.
You have the mistaken idea that the burden of proof lies with those who are NOT demanding that humanity essentially return to the stone age to “save it” from an imaginary “crisis” based on hypothetical bullshit.
The burden of proof lies with those pushing the imaginary “crisis,” not the other way around.
ffs. I am trying to find out what YOU believe is causing the warming cycle. How long this cycle will persist, what the peak temperature will be. It is getting warmer WHY?
Hiding behind statements like “ burden of proof lies with those pushing the imaginary “crisis,” ” does not answer what is causing the change/cycle
Given that the increases in temperature happened in perfect lockstep with the El Nino event’s of the 80’s and 90’s, providing a step change in temperatures until we reached the current pause or ‘hiatus’; what the hell do you think is causing the warming part of the cycle? And what, exactly, do you think will happen if we are experiencing the beginning of a series of La Nina’s, the opposite event to an El Nino? Answers on a bloody postcard, please!
No, but the assumption is, in the absence of evidence, that changes in the earth’s climate (barring asteroid strike) are part of the natural processes of the planet and its sun with possible influences from its satellite and fellow planets.
What is “pushing the quite imaginary crisis” is eco-activists and (probably) anti-democratic politicians and “useful idiots” with an agenda.
The earth has been colder and it has been warmer. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher and lower (barely: 280ppm is dangerously close the life-ending minimum). Nobody knows exactly what causes climate cycles but all the activist scares — heat, cold, flood, drought, storms, fires, anything else I’ve missed — are not down purely to the atmospheric levels of one extremely minor but essential trace gas.
Or if they are, considering the age of the planet and the frequency with which these extremes manifest themselves, a pretty high standard of proof is needed. And until then why would we waste our time trying to debunk the assertions (not proof or evidence) of those trying to overturn the evidence provided by several millennia of natural climatic variation.
Especially since virtually all their “proof” is the output of their own simplistic and demonstrably inaccurate computer models!
ghalfrunt, tell us what YOU believe caused the 1910 to 1940 warming cycle and why it started and ended when it did. Clown.
Ghoulfont takes the position that since we don’t know what is causing the current warming, we have to assume that it is going to kill us. Therefor we have to do everything in our power to stop the current warming, even though we don’t know what is causing it.
Eliminating CO2 emissions are the modern day equivalent to throwing a couple of virgins into the volcano.
I like the modern equivalent of buying indulgences whereby the wealthy and the woke individuals and corporations buy “carbon offsets.” Vaporware?
NOAA
temp_co2_change_noaa.jpg (524×291) (d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net)
Yeah, don’t let the majority of WUWT readers deny the obvious warming. Last January in the US, many areas had max temps below 0F. Lately some areas of the US have had max temps over 100F. If this trend keeps up for even a few more months, we will all be burnt up to a crisp. Yikes 🙂
“How long this cycle will persist, what the peak temperature will be. It is getting warmer WHY?”
Us sceptics are happy to admit that we don’t know why or how high temps will peak at, as the climate is so complex we don’t currently know enough to pass judgement.
It is you CO2 obsessed thermaggedonists who think you’ve got it all worked out climate-wise, so why don’t you tell us what the peak temperature will be? After all, what with the science being settled, and all that, you must have an answer at your fingertips, yes?
That has got to be the stupidest thing you have ever written. If you can re-read what you just wrote without hanging your head in shame, then you truly have no conscience.
YOU are the one claiming that society needs to be destroyed an recreated. So it’s up to YOU to demonstrate that such pain and death is necessary. Just declaring that it might be is not sufficient. Only someone who truly hates people could take such a position.
You have heard of the pause, right? Y’know – that period of no discernable increase in temperatures that some people believe is the peak, or crest of the curve before it plunges down into lower temperatures? Given that this cycle has been going on for over 50 years to date, abrupt may not be the right word to use. As to those weather event’s that you spuriously credit to climate change, there is still no increase in trends in floods, rainfall or any other weather event you have named. Given how long you and Griffy have been banging on about this with no evidence and no pattern, we’re all getting a bit bored – the whining gets irritating after a while. Can you either pack it in, or at least be entertaining about it – tell a couple of jokes, sing a song or something – just for a change, eh?
Trolling Devices cannot feign humor.
I really shouldn’t do this, since you prefer to remain ignorant, however I will engage my sadistic side and attempt to educate you.
1) It has not risen consistently since the 60’s. Whatever the high ends up being, temperatures are still lower than the MWP. Which in turn was lower than the Roman Warm Period, which was lower than the Minoan and Egyptian warm periods, all of which were cooler than the Holocene Optimum which covered most of the last 10,000 years.
2) There are many natural cycles, ranging from a few years to over a century. There is evidence of longer cycles, but there is not enough data to prove them yet.
3) There has to be a reason? Really? What’s the reason for the sun spot cycle? What drives the ENSO cycle? Do you really want to take the position that unless the driving mechanism is known, a cycle doesn’t exist?
4) The current change is not abrupt. The climate record over the last few hundred years shows many instances when climate changed this fast and faster. As you go further back in time you run into the problem of low resolution in the proxies. Many of the proxies have decadal to century level resolution, so proclaiming that they don’t show fast responses just demonstrates how ignorant you are.
5a) Cities built near oceans. With oceans only rising a foot or two per century, the buildings nearest the coast will be past their usable lifespan long before the water reaches them. When they get torn down, just build the replacement further inland. No problem, except for those who’s ignorance of how the world work is only exceeded by their hubris.
5b) The world could easily support twice the world’s population at the west’s level of affluence. These days affluence is not measured by the size of the things you own. Perhaps if your mind wasn’t consumed by last centuries socialist fallacies, you would have known that.
5c) Droughts have always occurred, those that are occurring in the present are much smaller than droughts over the last few hundred to few thousand years.
5d) Once again, floods have always happened, and the recent ones aren’t unusual compared to the ones recorded over the last 1000 years.
5e) Why do you believe society can’t adapt if the temperatures go up another tenth of a degree or so?
So why was it warmer before the little ice age.?
Why was there a little ice age?
Why did the LIA end?
Temperatures are still not as high as before the LIA.
Griff what you say can be summed up in one word
Bollocks
we arent as stupid as you.
The griffster speaks, but nobody here even cares…except for his entertainment value…
griffie-pooh, when are YOU going to contribute to dropping CO2 by wearing rebreather equipment and living the primitive life? Please keep us informed, mmmkay? I doubt you’d survive once the crackers run out.
There are “exceptional” weather events somewhere or other every day/week/ month/year, griff. Why don’t you try looking at some long-term weather statistics instead of the cherry-picked last 40 years or so that the eco-activists want you to know about?
The world didn’t start in 1980, you know!
Try this for a starter: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/07/28/bbc-says-flash-floods-getting-worse/#more-52153.
And you’ll find plenty more on the same site. And elsewhere. You think we can control the climate? Seriously? Think again, son!
🤣
Let the UK be the experiment for the world…griffter wants it…..it will be a green disaster….blame griffter
You poor deluded fool, Griffy. Why the hell should Joe Public contribute to an expert report intended for government? People have their say in electing a representative, giving input in meetings with their MP (although they don’t have to take that advice or input), and ultimately not voting them in again if they don’t like them. That’s the system we’ve got and it seems to work, more or less. Why on earth would you think that more people need to be involved in decision making? It makes no sense.
Joe Public wasn’t consulted on any of the green policies that the government are currently rolling out, neither were the majority of the MP’s by the sounds of it. This is the pushback against a tiny minority dictating UK Government policy across the entirety of the country.
Watching a doc last night ,British leaving Dunkirk in a hurry , one scene was back inland buses trucks dumped every were, just as the already flooded fields started to flood the roads ,don’t buy into this ” its already started bs” flooding has always happened and always will, there lieing to you griff don’t buy into this bs.
CO2 isn’t driving climate change and isn’t endangering the world, the plants love it and so do we with the increased yields we get from it.
CO2 postulated warm forcing increase has become very small at the 430 ppm level.
“the UK is already seeing negative climate change effects in the form of exceptional/damaging heavy rain events/floods”
uh?
did you mean the Barbecue summer the met office forecast that was rained off?
Do you make your BS up as you go along or is it a mental sickness?
“The Great Storm of 1703 was a destructive extratropical cyclone that struck central and southern England on 26 November 1703.
High winds caused 2,000 chimney stacks to collapse in London and damaged the New Forest, which lost 4,000 oaks.
Ships were blown hundreds of miles off-course, and over 1,000 seamen died on the Goodwin Sands “
Hell’s teeth! Where did that suddenly pop up from?! Stringer and Lilley were about the only ones to oppose the Climate Change Act. Mostly any opposition has been brushed aside. Somebody has woken up at last!
Newminster, I can’t give you names, but there were 5 MPs who voted against the 2008 Climate Change Act – 3 votes and two tellers. That was a long time ago and probably several of those supporting the APPG were probably not even MPs then…
Noes: Christopher Chope, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie.
Tellers: Ann Widdecombe, Philip Davies.
I was mistaken: Graham Stringer was absent for the vote but he was certainly opposed.
My surprise is that I never had wind of this. I would have expected at least to have heard a whisper. Well done for keeping it under wraps! 👍
Yes indeed. The passing of the Climate Change Act with such a vast majority revealed how abysmally ignorant so many of the politicians are. ( I think only 4 MPs opposed it.)
It definitely needs to be binned and the sooner the better.
Instead, they should incentivise the move to clean fuels by motivating industry and entrepreneurs to develop technologies that will not impact adversely on the economy, drivers, or businesses. – article
OK, well, here’s a solution to the problem: go back to using horses and oxen for transporting goods here and there, and put horses back to work pulling hackneys (cabs) on the streets of England’s cities and towns. Two good things come of this: a complete reduction in exhaust gases from carbon-fueled vehicles, and there will be plenty of fertilizer to pick up for use in farmlands. 🙂
It was only slightly over 100 years ago that horses were still pulling trolleys and cabs in New York City and other US cities, never mind London and Paris. There’s plenty of antique silent film archived to show this history.
The Greenbeanies are nuts. They want the results, not what it takes to get there.
For the record, I don’t own a car these days, so I rent one about once a week to do grocery shopping. While I’m impressed by the mileage per gallon and pickup action (start off the block from a dead stop) of these vehicles, the fact that gas at the pump is up exponentially is partly due to the fuel economy engineering. I appreciate the engineering, but do not like the lack of range. I keep my gas receipts to compare between this year and last year, and unless we actually went back to the gas-guzzling V-8s of yore and gas at $0.75/gallon at the pump, the only people who get a real break are truckers and goods delivery drivers.
I am somewhat disappointed that the hybrid vehicle doesn’t seem to be as popular as it should have been, because when I commuted daily between Chicago and Milwaukee for a couple of years (that got old quickly), I did see Priuses on the road and gave that real consideration. I also saw city buses in Chicago that carried signs specifying that they were hybrid vehicles. I figured that was part of a real testing program. That was 20 years ago: where are the advantages to it now?
Whoever says that the Greenbeaners and Ecohippies don’t want the work, just the results, is absolutely on the nose. They live in a dream world and despise reality. If they had to live the way people lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, they would not do very well.
That’s gonna upset the true deep greenies Sarah.
Horses fart on an almost continuous basis, and we keep getting told that methane is much-much worse than the dreaded Satan Molecule. 😉
To make things worse, mares get really stubborn when they are in-season, so the same farting comes with a significant drop in utility. 😉
Adding a little factoid here – the supply of hay to the front line was a challenge during armed conflict in the not-too-distant past. If modern society was more dependent on horsepower, there would need to be a substantial supply new industry to produce hay, and ship it to main population centres where all the horses would be kept busy converting hay into methane, dung, and little horses (the three things they do best). 😉
The main problem is, that if we go back to using horses, we all get to see the same view as we would watching uk politicians.
With similar emissions.
Don’t confuse H.S. with B.S.
Why not, Dave? These days H.S. is full of B.S., and there’s even more in college.
Oh, you meant another H.S.
ZZW, you could post a spew warning, y’know!!!!
Let’s go a step or two further. Once electric vehicles are the majority mode of transportation, how will the government collect road taxes which are now tied to fuel purchases? Will they add a surcharge onto your electric bill? Will they require a black box in your vehicle to record you mileage and you pay based on that? Or some other controlling method? It seems to me that whatever is mandated, it is designed to place more government control over our lives and to limit our ability to muster opposition. And as we have just seen with the eviction moratorium extension in direct defiance of a SCOTUS decision, who’s to stop them?
I assume you do not like government mandating that you drive on the right side of the road, that mandated speed limits in towns and that firearms are not allowed to be owned by the general population.
Oh wait a minute, hold that gun comment – I forgot the USA! Family Guy Right To Bear Arms – YouTube
Gee, ghalfrutn, I hate to tell you this, but two-way traffic on roads goes so far back into history that it is ridiculous to bring up government dictates on which side of the road you use. You also failed to take into account that in the UK, the lane you’re driving in is on the LEFT side of the road.
The assumption that modern roads haven’t been around long is historically incorrect on your part as is the assumption that GOVT dictates which lane is which for driving.
Yeah, this whole left/right thing is a historical quirk – oddly enough, driving on the right may indicate historical french influence, I was disinterested to learn.
Where is the problem, ask Swedens old car drivers how it was to change from left side driving to the right side driving.
Rules that govern the use of roads have nothing to do with the government tracking your vehicle usage. They do not limit my ability to go where I want, when I want. Having to report how many miles I drive and the ability of government to track where I go and when I go is totally different, but you know that.
As for the gun comment, a government can never totally enslave a nation whose citizens are armed. They will try, but cannot succeed.
A new news article just came out that speaks of the Biden administration proposing a “pilot” program to make road taxes based on the mileage you drive. So how are they going to keep track of that? The one way would be for everyone to report to a government facility to have their mileage read, but that will eventually morph into black boxes in vehicles to make it easier to pay your taxes on line. Once they do that they will eventually start restricting usage. You see, once it starts it never stops until the people have had enough and fight back. An unarmed citizenry cannot do that.
There are signs everywhere that people have had just about enough. Hence, the article about EU concerns that another massive “gilets jaunes” protest may occur before long.
Well, what the heck, why not? Summer’s a-comin’ in, and the wine vines have been damaged by bad weather, so what is there to do EXCEPT protest? And make the protest objectives about just everything – tous les choses!!!
Most developed countries have annual road tests, and record the mileages*. Obviously using that data will not be invasive enough, so black boxes tracking you will be mandatory.
* Interestingly, here in Queensland, Australia, there is no annual test. Your car only has to be tested when sold. My car has never had to have a test, and since I’ll use it until it expires, probably after 20 years or more in all, it’ll never have a test.
Not so in Florida.
Making people drive on one side of the road and obey speed limits is about preserving people’s personal safety. It has nothing to do with collecting taxes. Talk about comparing apples to oranges!
You might as well say that mandating that murder is illegal is akin to making people pay income tax.
You solid gold wally.
This is scary, is our resident socialist actually taking the position that if government has a right to make some laws, then there is no reason to object to any law?
No wonder so many feel that totalitarianism is the goal of most socialists.
And the fact that he feels a cartoon is the last word on gun rights, does go to show how cartoonish most of his thinking is.
Surely Griff be along to tell us they just need to put wind turbines on every car. The cars motion will power the turbine in a beautiful green perpetual motion machine.
Risking My Life To Settle A Physics Debate – YouTube
To believe that this video settles the issue is really pathetic. The vehicle is using the propeller as a “sail” of sorts. There is a component of lift that is being employed to pull the vehicle. In fact, a sail would probably work better, but if you want to believe that you can drive a generator and motor with the turbine and run the vehicle at any speed and in any direction whatsoever, well go ahead. Does it run well in other directions? I think it was a straight-line demo.
Up above, ghoulfont linked to a cartoon show to support his position on gun control.
Just goes to show you that ghoulfont is not the intellectual he believes himself to be.
Land yacht. Your point is?
A burst to the EV growth projections may be in the making. The California warning signs may be verification about the drawbacks of EV’s
Granted, that half the EV’s in the entire country are registered in California, the troubling news is that there may be warning signs about a bust to the EV growth bubble, as the statistics from California demonstrate that:
· California incomes rank among the highest in the country
· The highly educated and financially well off are currently the primary owners of EV’s.
· EV usage being slightly more than 5,000 miles a year is a reflection that the EV is a second vehicle and not the family workhorse vehicle.
· The growing percentage of EV owners that are switching back to gasoline cars, is a message that may deflate EV growth projections.
Not just cars…..
Shifted Energy’s innovative technology allows appliances, like water heaters and pool pumps, to turn on during the day to use clean solar energy. The water will stay hot in the tank until you need it. By not turning back on in the evening, your appliance will help reduce demand during peak hours. The controller will also learn how you use hot water to make sure you have enough to meet your normal needs.
For a price. A very steep price, I should imagine.
Technology used to be Man’s slave (Capitalism). Now Man is a slave to technology (Socialism). Capitalism creates plenty. Socialism allocates shortages.
This completely ignores tankless water heaters, which I have installed in the new home I built a year ago.
How many people have pools? Of those, how many aren’t already on timers?
What percentage of the country’s energy usage do water heaters and pool pumps represent?
I really can’t think of much else that might be able to take advantage of such technology?
A/C? Not really, when it’s really hot, my A/C comes on at least once an hour, and my dwelling is quite well insulated. Beyond that just being home and turning on TV, computer, lights, stove/oven, whatever produces heat. Turning the heat down earlier just increases the total amount of energy being used by your A/C without much in the way of decrease during the early evening hours.
Heater? During the day is when the heater is least needed.
Cooking? Only useful if you have the skills to completely prepare everything in advance and all that is needed is the final heating. Beyond that, the energy used in cooking is not a major factor in most monthly bills.
Anything else, I’m pretty much drawing a blank.
As to water heaters, heating them up during the day is fine and dandy, but if you need to wash dishes after dinner, give the kids their bath, etc. and you are going to run out of hot water pretty quick. You can always increase the size of the water heater, but a larger water heater is going to radiate even more heat. Larger surface area.
You are also ignoring the weekends and holidays, when the family is home all day.
If the electric grid can’t supply the power needed on weekends and holidays, it’s still a fail.
In Australia, especially in the tropical North, we do a lot of passive rooftop solar heating for water. It obviously heats up in the day, and there’s plenty for the night. Almost zero cost.
On hot sunny days, a/c can easily run continuously and hard, do PV is very beneficial.
My pool heat pump also benefits from the hot days, since I get about 6x as much energy from it than I put in when it’s hot. Even in winter when I need it, the temperature in my shed reaches 30C easily.
Some places can really benefit from solar energy, either active (PV) or passive. Most places will not, however.
There’s isn’t much point in reading past that. Start with the premise that everyone wants clean air to breathe, then pile on the pointless severe restrictions that serve only the green blob.
Did you read the part where they DON’T want the mandated switch to electric vehicles? Because it seems from your comment that you might have missed it.
What they say and what they do will not be the same. Politicians ALWAYS say “well, we really don’t want to do that” . They hope you let your guard down long enough so they can implement their unpopular policies before you know what hit you.
Yes. But this appears to be the pushback to that, at least in the case of the policy of a mandated switch to EV’s.
So the UK has set its own doomsday clock. Tick, tick, tick
“APPG Chair, Craig Mackinlay says: “The only thing that’s protecting the Government from electoral harm on this matter is the seeming Westminster consensus and lack of courage to stand up to the climate fanatics and say: enough!“
***************
With his statement above, Mr. Mackinlay is approaching the root of the matter but still comes up short. What still lies at the heart of all this on both sides of the Atlantic is the widespread or consensus belief that the climate alarmist narrative is scientifically sound and does not need to be challenged or questioned. Proposing cleaner fuels (that presumably are not supposed to emit as much CO2, if any) as an alternative to EVs is still just nibbling away at the edges.
As I have said before, Trump had the opportunity to challenge the narrative while in office, but didn’t. Nevertheless, I have a hunch that the climate alarmists know that there is a considerable amount of science out there to shoot down the climate scare narrative, and they are scared to death of it. And the should be.
I for one am getting tired of seeing no one in high office manifest the intestinal fortitude to gather all the refuting science together and go on offense against the alarmist narrative. It is amazing that the alarmists have succeeding in a campaign of suppression to keep the narrative alive and kicking this long. Being in control of the media, academia, the scientific institutions (in and out of govt) and much of the Internet certainly helps a lot.
Never underestimate the actual existence of something resembling George Orwell’s Big Brother.
It is my hope that budding journalists, without President Trump to attack, will spend the time to dig into CliSciFi lies.
They didn’t before Trump was president.
Good for those MPs.
For the first time in history humans are thriving and the greedy and uninformed want to destroy it with idealism. Communication through electronics and transportation and good weather has made thriving possible.
The market place is the best decider for transportation and it is the people who make that decision. To paraphrase one commenter there are easier ways to toast a marshmallow.
You can tell how good EV’s are by the fact that they have to force them down people’s throats.
“force policy makers to face facts”
That would be a first.
So people are now conflating CO2 with “clean air to breathe”. You know what I don’t see in the news anymore? People whining about smog and visible pollution from motor vehicles.
What I do see are countless articles about pollen, fires, Saharan dust and dust kicked up by agriculture cultivation and how those with asthma or other challenged people.
I’m guessing that the auto industry has managed to reduce vehicle emissions to the point where roach excrement in unkept homes is a greater respiratory health hazard.
Y’know, the last real inversion layer I can remember seeing was when one floated down the East Coast in the late 1960s, when I was out in Washington, DC. Haven’t see one since then, despite the warnings about Mt. St. Helens (volcanic eruption, dusty bits) and Pinatubo’s eruption as well.
and now:
Biden sets goal for 50% of new US vehicles to be electric by 2030 | Greenhouse gas emissions | The Guardian
So? Biden’s an idiot. Just like you.
I don’t think that goal is going to become law.
Biden won’t be around much longer, one way or the other. So anything he projects beyond 2024 is meaningless.
If anyone needed anymore proof that Joe is senile.
Just as griff doesn’t know the difference between a press release about a companies plans, vs actual action. griff apparently doesn’t know the difference between a goal and a law.
The griff
The Fair Fuel folk are essentially asking gov to scrap the net zero by whatever year plan. Interesting to see what happens.
The idea to shift to EV in 9 years before all needed technology is developed is grade school silliness. Gov, you can’t supply adequate electricity for running things as they are today. Your grid is going to crash without plugging in electric cars. You will be having FF cars and trucks and grid electricity for at least much of the balance of this century. Is this not clear to you? Are you getting enough omega 3 fatty acids? Too much testosterone killing tofu?
I have a question. It is entirely non-rhetorical. I hope the scientifically-inclined here will answer it in detail, because I thought I had a comprehensive understanding of EVs until the other day when I heard something that I’ve not been able to confirm or refute through research online.
It is about the venting of lithium batteries, a necessary feature to prevent fires. I was told that the venting releases not just toxic and potentially flammable gases, but also significant amounts of CO2. I am skeptical, but my skepticism + $3 buys something at Starbucks so I thought I’d ask the question here.
Please don’t make it up. I hate it when people do that. Educated guesses are welcome, but they MUST be educated. My agenda is this: What are the facts?
Disclosure: I own an EV, a 2011 Think City bought in 2012 as the company was liquidating inventory (at deep discounts) while going out of business. I bought it strictly out of curiosity, as a semi-car nut as opposed to some sort of virtue. I also own a Ram 3500 diesel truck. I have used the EV as a short-range grocery-getter, and as a focal point to learn about EVs and electricity generation.
I had never heard that lithium batteries vent CO2. It would be falling-down hilarious if they do, but I’m not believing it without verification. WattsUp is an excellent site with a high signal-to-noise ratio, so this is where I’m starting.
“The composition of (Lithium ion) battery vent gas during thermal runaway event includes CO2, CO, H2 and volatile organic compounds (VOC’s).” – ‘Detection of Li-ion battery failure and venting with carbon dioxide sensors’ Ting Cai and Jason Siegel, 2021.
So, yes – it seems that they do vent CO2.
Sorry for not supplying the link, but I’m on my phone – should be straightforward to look up, though.
Yep I just checked that one out, co2 ,other gases and toxic particles
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590116820300588
Thanks for the reply (you too, B Clarke.)
Your replies, and the one link, focus on thermal runaway, the precursor to a fire. For sure, thermal runaway is something to care about, but I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that it’s rare, and not part of normal operation. Thus, I am inclined to exclude thermal runaway from any analysis unless anyone can show that it’s a whole lot more common than I think it is.
This is NOT indicative of agenda-pushing but the opposite: an attempt to find the correct analytical basis. I should have stressed “normal operation” in my original post. In any case, I remain skeptical that ordinary lithium battery venting is a CO2 source. I actually would like it a lot more if it was a CO2 source — the laughs would be truly delicious — but I am constrained by integrity.
If there’s evidence of CO2 emissions from normal venting of lithium batteries, I’d love to see it. Call me an open-minded skeptic. If this were true, I think I’d have run across it by now, but you never know.
Boris Johnson should immediately announce that henceforth MPs and Lords must immediately replace their ICE cars with electric ones. Use of Taxis and Uber would be banned unless the vehicles are electric. And that all Parliamentary vehicles will be electric from next week.
Why shouldn’t a nation’s leaders lead by example?
(Also it would be hilarious watching unhappy MPs with flat batteries being towed around regularly.)
Wouldn’t make much of a difference – the MP’s and Lords will find an easy way around it and the staff mostly use bicycles (yup – virtue signalling civil servants, sir Humphrey Applebee would be apoplectic!).
Interestingly, the Biden administration is issuing an executive order for the exact same thing, announced today I believe. It’s like a globally-coordinated push to force the world to buy rare earths for motors and batteries from China, since the developed world has banned itself from doing so. What will happen then, when the world is dependent on China for energy and transportation? Where will all political power lie?
Didn’t a recent report on the WUWT site remind us that even though California annually sells half (175,000) of all EVs in the US, those 175,000 amount to less than 10% of the 2 million motor vehicles sold in the Sunshine State? So if Californians with generous government subsidies, some of the highest gas prices in the country, an excellent road system, a favorable climate, and 33,000 public recharging stations can’t sell them, why should consumers in jurisdictions with fewer benefits be forced into doing so?
It’s the kind of fantastically irresponsible vote whoring that is typical of Western democratic governments these days. They know they don’t have the power and millions in the UK use electric home heat. Which will be sacrificed? Economic activity or old people’s heat? It is a level of self interested and deliberate incompetence that deserves prison.