New petrol and diesel vehicles sales ban in UK from 2035

[vonuber]

Agammemnon said:

"Would you like to know more?"

Fleet does the flying, mobile infantry does the dying.

[Nickgnome]

NoNeed said:

Nickgnome said:

NoNeed said:

I do hope the government of the world list and fit charging point in all battlefield so our Tank regiments can charge on the go

You think the next major war in which we partake will be fought with tanks?

You need help

My opinion is that we are unlikely to get into major fisticuffs for a generation or two, or at least hope so.

You may have noticed that it has been alleged that certain nations are busy interfering in other nations electoral systems, additionally the same or others are fiddling with power grids and other networks.

The advantage to the aggressor is it is a relatively inexpensive way of causing major disruption, without automatically being found out.

Then of course we have the nasty little virus in China, not deliberately produced.

I’d hazard a guess that technology will pay a much larger role in any future conflict than any of us realise.

I think we only have about 80k personnel in the Army and about 150 tanks so hardly a force to be reckoned with in a large conflict if we were alone.

[Agammemnon]

Nickgnome said:

My opinion is that we are unlikely to get into major fisticuffs for a generation or two, or at least hope so.

The "War to end all wars" wasn't all that.

Nickgnome said:

I think we only have about 80k personnel in the Army and about 150 tanks so hardly a force to be reckoned with in a large conflict if we were alone.

Ever hear tell of something called NATO?

[NoNeed]

Nickgnome said:

NoNeed said:

Nickgnome said:

NoNeed said:

I do hope the government of the world list and fit charging point in all battlefield so our Tank regiments can charge on the go

You think the next major war in which we partake will be fought with tanks?

You need help

My opinion is that we are unlikely to get into major fisticuffs for a generation or two, or at least hope so.

You may have noticed that it has been alleged that certain nations are busy interfering in other nations electoral systems, additionally the same or others are fiddling with power grids and other networks.

The advantage to the aggressor is it is a relatively inexpensive way of causing major disruption, without automatically being found out.

Then of course we have the nasty little virus in China, not deliberately produced.

I’d hazard a guess that technology will pay a much larger role in any future conflict than any of us realise.

I think we only have about 80k personnel in the Army and about 150 tanks so hardly a force to be reckoned with in a large conflict if we were alone.

like i said, you do need help

[Agammemnon]

vonuber said:

Fleet does the flying, mobile infantry does the dying.

If Fleet has EVs then please sign me up.

[Coolbananas]

Nickgnome said:

Agammemnon said:

Nickgnome said:

If in the future if we produce stuff which does not contribute to increasing pollution including Co2, that has to have a beneficial impact on the atmosphere as it is now, does it not? Fortunately our eco system can manage certain levels of pollutants and some even thrive on elements.

Nice words. How do we practically achieve what you've indicated a desire for?

Now you are being unnecessarily argumentative. We have innumerable challenges globally that people are working hard to overcome, by experts in their respective fields yet you seem go be asking me to engineer every single solution in respect to the climate issue.

Is assume you would accept that an medical cure / vaccine for the current virus in China may be a good idea. Are you going to come up with one?

This is the biggest issue with PH 'debates'. Too many feel they are correct if they can get their opposing PH'er to admit that they cannot solve whatever issue it is that the debate is about. They completely ignore that actual specialists in their respective fields are out there doing their utmost to overcome the challenges ahead.

If PH had existed in 1965 no doubt these same 'debaters' would be ridiculing the idea of man walking on the Moon a few years later - and demanding other PH'ers to tell them how it would be possible, down to the minutest detail!

Most here are not high level experts in many specialised fields, most glean what they can from the internet and use that as a basis for their arguments - other people's work that they happen to want to think is the most correct.

The fact is, goals and commitments have been set to achieve zero petrol, diesel and even hybrid vehicles in the non-too-distant future. Many folks are working at delivering this target and we'll have to wait and see if the targets will be met or if it is a bit later. Either way, I do believe the will is there for it to happen and it is just a matter of time, whether those opposed like it or not.

[Agammemnon]

Coolbananas said:

The fact is, goals and commitments have been set to achieve zero petrol, diesel and even hybrid vehicles in the non-too-distant future.

It's often considered sensible before making commitments to at least have an idea as to how they can be fulfilled. I don't see this beyond hope & vague statements of intent.

[vonuber]

Agammemnon said:

It's often considered sensible before making commitments to at least have an idea as to how they can be fulfilled. I don't see this beyond hope & vague statements of intent.

You've clearly not worked with many clients in the construction industry

[JNW1]

Nickgnome said:

JNW1 said:

I took the "stop having kids" to mean looking at ways of halting the rapid rise in population growth we've seen over the last 50 years; that doesn't mean literally having no kids at all but probably does mean limiting the number to the replacement value (i.e. two per couple). As people are living longer there would still be some gradual population growth over time but the very rapid increase in the global population we've experienced in the last half century is without doubt a massive contributor to the problems we're seeing with emissions and therefore climate change. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that - and thinks this population growth can simply continue unchecked - really has their head firmly in the sand IMO...

Plain English is plain English and inferring a meaning which may or may not be there is unwise. There is a whole industry supported by said inferences.

He said Stop having children for a start. That is an unambiguous statement.

Have you heard of Hans Rosling?

I'm sure AshVX220 can come back and confirm but I rather doubt he (or she) was actually suggesting all humans should cease to reproduce completely; stop having too many kids would have been more appropriate - and probably what was meant - but I accept that wasn't actually what was said!

I have heard of Hans Rosling and I'm sure he was a very bright man; however, as I'm sure you're aware, many other bright individuals didn't agree with his view of the world (including, for example, his take on the effect of population growth).

[Earthdweller]

Nickgnome said:

My opinion is that we are unlikely to get into major fisticuffs for a generation or two, or at least hope so.

You may have noticed that it has been alleged that certain nations are busy interfering in other nations electoral systems, additionally the same or others are fiddling with power grids and other networks.

The advantage to the aggressor is it is a relatively inexpensive way of causing major disruption, without automatically being found out.

Then of course we have the nasty little virus in China, not deliberately produced.

I’d hazard a guess that technology will pay a much larger role in any future conflict than any of us realise.

I think we only have about 80k personnel in the Army and about 150 tanks so hardly a force to be reckoned with in a large conflict if we were alone.

227 challenger main battle tanks and 5000 armoured fighting vehicles actually

5th most powerful military in the world ...alone

[Willow1212]

R Mutt said:

Willow1212 said:

Agammemnon said:

Do we not dig materials for solar panels & EVs out of the ground?

Yep, but we don't burn them. They get used. Then recycled. And the volume is much less.
Not ideal for sure, but certainly much better, and we're using less and less of the worst materials as things develop.

You should have have a look at the environmental impact of Lithium mining in Latin America.

Is that the famous meme that was debunked and is actually a photo of a copper mine?
Lithium is something like 4% of a battery and comes from evaporating sea water, or interestingly a waste bi-product of oil refining.

Cobalt is mined and not in a good way. But it is 1% of modern batteries and they are finding ways to use less. The oil industry is also a big user of cobalt, it is used to make low sulphur fuel which is a one time usage.

When used in batteries, both can be recycled.

Extracting, refining and transporting fuel is often overlooked alongside exhaust emmisions and uses a huge amount of infrastructure, energy and other materials. Just refining a gallon of fuel takes about 7.5kWh of energy. That'll power an EV about 30 miles.

[Agammemnon]

vonuber said:

Agammemnon said:

It's often considered sensible before making commitments to at least have an idea as to how they can be fulfilled. I don't see this beyond hope & vague statements of intent.

You've clearly not worked with many clients in the construction industry

Sadly I have. I didn't say it happens, I said it's a sensible way of doing things. We could start on this thread.........................

[Pan Pan Pan]

Nickgnome said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Isn't producing kids so that someone will be around to wipe your rear (or whatever else needs wiping) a rather shallow, selfish reason for having kids, especially bearing in mind the damage to the planet the extra billions of kids will be inflicting on the planet, whilst they are waiting around for the opportunity to wipe your rear?

I assume you never go to a dentist, optician, doctor, never went to school etc.etc. You just popped into the world an angry old man.

Don’t be a plonker.

Ah so you do think that kids are only there to wipe your rear. OK

[Pan Pan Pan]

Willow1212 said:

R Mutt said:

Willow1212 said:

Agammemnon said:

Do we not dig materials for solar panels & EVs out of the ground?

Yep, but we don't burn them. They get used. Then recycled. And the volume is much less.
Not ideal for sure, but certainly much better, and we're using less and less of the worst materials as things develop.

You should have have a look at the environmental impact of Lithium mining in Latin America.

Is that the famous meme that was debunked and is actually a photo of a copper mine?
Lithium is something like 4% of a battery and comes from evaporating sea water, or interestingly a waste bi-product of oil refining.

Cobalt is mined and not in a good way. But it is 1% of modern batteries and they are finding ways to use less. The oil industry is also a big user of cobalt, it is used to make low sulphur fuel which is a one time usage.

When used in batteries, both can be recycled.

Extracting, refining and transporting fuel is often overlooked alongside exhaust emmisions and uses a huge amount of infrastructure, energy and other materials. Just refining a gallon of fuel takes about 7.5kWh of energy. That'll power an EV about 30 miles.

The fuel factor shown in the UK`s building regulations is based on the cradle to grave analysis of all the fuels currently available to power a home, and with the current generation mix still gives electricity one of the worst values. This can change if we switch to a mix of Nuclear, and renewables, but we don't quite have that yet.

[R Mutt]

Willow1212 said:

R Mutt said:

Willow1212 said:

Agammemnon said:

Do we not dig materials for solar panels & EVs out of the ground?

Yep, but we don't burn them. They get used. Then recycled. And the volume is much less.
Not ideal for sure, but certainly much better, and we're using less and less of the worst materials as things develop.

You should have have a look at the environmental impact of Lithium mining in Latin America.

Is that the famous meme that was debunked and is actually a photo of a copper mine?
Lithium is something like 4% of a battery and comes from evaporating sea water, or interestingly a waste bi-product of oil refining.

No idea what that is

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07r8t2f

[JagLover]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Perhaps an irony is that many vehicles spend most of their time going no where, and just sitting parked somewhere.
So on paper at least the way most vehicles are used, suits EV`s.
I like the idea of not having to go to a filling station for fuel, and just having to plug the vehicle in, when the vehicle is sitting on the drive outside the house (although this is not going to be possible for everyone), or on reaching a destination, being immediately able to plug the vehicle in, so that I have plenty of energy/range for the return trip.
At present driving an EV in this way is not possible, but it should not be an insurmountable problem to solve. But having the equivalent of filling stations for EV`s is a complete nonsense. the vehicles need to have access to a recharging system every where.
Even performance does not seem to be an issue, because many EVs are very quick, It is just there is a gap existent in what we want EV`s to do, and what they actually can do.
When that gap is bridged in some way, EVs should be no more popular or unpopular than current ICE vehicles.
The question marks have to be what happens when to an EV, when it gets older, as no one will want to buy a used EV, with little life left in its most important part the battery. Given the nature of materials used in the manufacture of EV batteries, does the Earth have enough raw materials to meet the demand that will arise once everyone has switched to EV`s?

Late to the thread on this one, but this seems to be the key for me. Change the mindset as you wont be able to charge EV in the same way you currently buy petrol, it just isn't going to work. So there will need to be other ways if this is going to work. Home charging is an obvious solution, but wont be possible for all. So in addition workplaces and supermarkets will all need lots of charging points. Then for long journeys all motorway service station car park places will be fast charging points THAT WORK WITH ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLES. With a change of mentality, and some organisation from government, the charging side of things can work.

What gets me rather more worried is where all the electricity is going to come from.

[JagLover]

cardigankid said:

. (NHS are already buying 700 Jaguar I-Paces for their management staff, how lovely.)

You say this like its an extravagance. Any fleet manager with any sense would be looking at the Ipace (and similar electric vehicles from other manufacturers) for their senior staff. Have you seen the difference in BIK tax?. Also, if purchased outright rather than leased, the electric vehicle will qualify for 100% FYA for capital allowances.

[Dont like rolls]

Ahhh, the standard Pay Peanuts get Monkeys reason

But with the NHS you pay market rate and still get Monkey Management.