RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
dcb said:
The planet has been both hotter and colder, recovered back to mean values and still it spins.
There is no tipping point.
A tipping point is merely a point at which one stable equilibrium shifts to another. There is no tipping point.
dcb said:
I don't see a small change in conditions over a vanishingly small geological interval of a couple
of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
The issue, for many species, is the rate of change exceeding their capacity to migrate or evolve. of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
dcb said:
The planet has been both hotter and colder, recovered back to mean values and still it spins.
There is no tipping point.
It's only 10,000 years or so since the last European Ice Age. Of course things are warming up
a bit.
I don't see a small change in conditions over a vanishingly small geological interval of a couple
of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
The trouble is that we are in the process of tipping things back to a state that last existed around 30 million yers ago. The planet will survive, of course it will, but life would not be sustainable in a fashion that we would find acceptable.There is no tipping point.
It's only 10,000 years or so since the last European Ice Age. Of course things are warming up
a bit.
I don't see a small change in conditions over a vanishingly small geological interval of a couple
of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
The fact that this change is happening in a geological blink of an eyelid is precisely the issue, it's the rate of change that is as damaging as the size of it.
seems like I've been taken as someone who is against EVs? 
some salty responses.
Thanks for sharing the e-fuel article, good read. I don't disagree, it's more me hoping that e-fuel takes off and I can continue freely runing my old honda etc.
I have nothing against EVs, and I'll own one when time is right, currently I feel like all owners are beta testers and our crappy goverment is doing very little to make the infrastructure better so I won't bother.
then again, very few new cars interest me in general, be it ICE or EV.
I think hyundai and Kia are doing more for EV's than any other manufacturer.. interesting to see chinese jumping in too.
some salty responses. Thanks for sharing the e-fuel article, good read. I don't disagree, it's more me hoping that e-fuel takes off and I can continue freely runing my old honda etc.
I have nothing against EVs, and I'll own one when time is right, currently I feel like all owners are beta testers and our crappy goverment is doing very little to make the infrastructure better so I won't bother.
then again, very few new cars interest me in general, be it ICE or EV.
I think hyundai and Kia are doing more for EV's than any other manufacturer.. interesting to see chinese jumping in too.
otolith said:
dcb said:
The planet has been both hotter and colder, recovered back to mean values and still it spins.
There is no tipping point.
A tipping point is merely a point at which one stable equilibrium shifts to another. There is no tipping point.
dcb said:
I don't see a small change in conditions over a vanishingly small geological interval of a couple
of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
The issue, for many species, is the rate of change exceeding their capacity to migrate or evolve. of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels appear to have peaked and may actually be declining now.
dcb said:
The planet has been both hotter and colder, recovered back to mean values and still it spins.
There is no tipping point.
It's only 10,000 years or so since the last European Ice Age. Of course things are warming up
a bit.
I don't see a small change in conditions over a vanishingly small geological interval of a couple
of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
Sounds like you're a disciple of turbobloke. There is no tipping point.
It's only 10,000 years or so since the last European Ice Age. Of course things are warming up
a bit.
I don't see a small change in conditions over a vanishingly small geological interval of a couple
of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
bigothunter said:
Rate of change of atmospheric CO2 has been almost constant for the last 40 years.
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels appear to have peaked and may actually be declining now.
Rate of change is a positive number, which means it continues to get worse.CO2 emissions from fossil fuels appear to have peaked and may actually be declining now.
Plenty of data that says emissions from fossil fuels have not peaked. Perhaps your 2020 dip coincided with global lockdowns.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
grudas said:
the way I see EVs is simple :
if it makes you feel better about your actions and you want an EV run it, don't stuff it down the throats of everyone else who may not want it. It seems to attract the same type of people that stuff Apple hardware down peoples throats and tell us how good it is to be vegan.
I personally much prefer running an older(most of my cars are nearing 20 years old) petrol and not worry about crappy infrastructure etc. I do get that buying an EV simply places emissions in a different area, I even have a feeling that EV's are just place-holders while e-fuels are being developed and made more main-stream. Let's be real, majority of people can't afford £30k on a small EV hatchback and running a 2-5k car is the norm.
either way, until massive corps get a kick up the arse, nothing will change.. single digit % drops don't mean much.
if it makes you feel better about your actions and you want an EV run it, don't stuff it down the throats of everyone else who may not want it. It seems to attract the same type of people that stuff Apple hardware down peoples throats and tell us how good it is to be vegan.
I personally much prefer running an older(most of my cars are nearing 20 years old) petrol and not worry about crappy infrastructure etc. I do get that buying an EV simply places emissions in a different area, I even have a feeling that EV's are just place-holders while e-fuels are being developed and made more main-stream. Let's be real, majority of people can't afford £30k on a small EV hatchback and running a 2-5k car is the norm.
either way, until massive corps get a kick up the arse, nothing will change.. single digit % drops don't mean much.
GT9 said:
Strangely Brown said:
"...a very real issue facing today's motorists - the increasingly large divide between those who can afford a NEW CAR and those who cannot. Are NEW CARS a realistic and practical solution for all?"
FTFYTry writing it out 50 times, I find it helps:
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
.....
Trouble is, a 10 year old leaf, can be classed as a family car no problem, is still 4-5k. Affordable to many more of course. However, a 10 year old leaf has a range of about 50 miles, so it’s virtually useless.
Even 5k is a stretch for many of the poorest in society, who run about in 1-3k fords/Vauxhall etc. plus these will still do 300-400 miles range of course….
It comes back to the (too fast) rush to EV’s effectively pricing less well off people out of being able to have private transportation at all. As their older fords/Vauxhalls etc will be increasingly, punitively taxed off the road via euro 5/6/7 increments for charge zones, with the second hand old EV’s, as above, being useless range wise.
Maybe they could buy a newer petrol car, a euro 5 you may say. That’s great, as fairly soon this will be taxed heavily too when euro 6 is made minimum for charge zones. They have to sell again, losing more money.
But I guess this is another conversation about forcing some elements of society out of cars altogether, which increasingly appears to be the chose path.
911hope said:
bigothunter said:
Rate of change of atmospheric CO2 has been almost constant for the last 40 years.
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels appear to have peaked and may actually be declining now.
Rate of change is a positive number, which means it continues to get worse.CO2 emissions from fossil fuels appear to have peaked and may actually be declining now.
Plenty of data that says emissions from fossil fuels have not peaked. Perhaps your 2020 dip coincided with global lockdowns.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Rate of change = d(ppm)/dt which is not increasing - it's constant.
Look at the second graph and you will notice a trend which started around 2013. Curve is starting to flatten towards a peak value. Nothing to do with Covid or 2020.
You appear to discredit data from the Global Carbon Project. Maybe they are a bunch of charlatans but you have given no justification for that view.
Nomme de Plum said:
So do rising sea levels cause you concern?
None whatsoever. Sea levels have been rising and falling for millions of years.Man can't do much about that.
Amsterdam, indeed most of the Netherlands, has been under sea level for centuries
and it's a nice place to visit. Sea defences work.
Nomme de Plum said:
Have you not noticed the many millions being spent on sea defences just in the UK?
I have, but a million quid isn't a lot of money these days. Less than 2p for everyone in the UK. Even larger sums like £100 million are less than £1.70 each
Something cheap like a Costa coffee was about £3.50 the last time I was daft enough to buy one.
Multiply that up by 60 million Brits and you get to £210 million. Still small change, on a national scale.
DonkeyApple said:
There are rumours growing that people might opt to just recharge at car parks while off doing other things rather than getting on the trains.
Wow! That would mean that, in order to be of practical use for everyone, every space would need to have a charger.I wonder what the power requirements for a reasonable car park of, say, 500 spaces might be.
bigothunter said:
Rate of change of atmospheric CO2 has been almost constant for the last 40 years.
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels appear to have peaked and may actually be declining now.
That's a misleadingly selective timeframe.CO2 emissions from fossil fuels appear to have peaked and may actually be declining now.
What you need to look at is the past 150 years compared to the last 10,000, that is the problem
Nomme de Plum said:
dcb said:
The planet has been both hotter and colder, recovered back to mean values and still it spins.
There is no tipping point.
It's only 10,000 years or so since the last European Ice Age. Of course things are warming up
a bit.
I don't see a small change in conditions over a vanishingly small geological interval of a couple
of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
So do rising sea levels cause you concern?There is no tipping point.
It's only 10,000 years or so since the last European Ice Age. Of course things are warming up
a bit.
I don't see a small change in conditions over a vanishingly small geological interval of a couple
of thousand years making much difference to the planet.
Nomme de Plum said:
Have you not noticed the many millions being spent on sea defences just in the UK?
Coastal erosion has always been a problem and is bugger all to do with climate change.Nomme de Plum said:
The planet may survive but it would be nice if the wildlife survived also.
Alarmist rhetoric is useful only for political agendas.Is the climate changing? Yes.
Is it anthropogenic? Probably, in part, but we don't know in exactly what way or by exactly how much and unless you know that you have no way to measure any changes that may or may not be a result of anything that you may or may not choose to do.
Rather than making life changing decisions for an entire populous based on summaries of summaries of a report it might be better to look at the actual data that formed the basis of the report. It's kind of important because the data do not say what ends up in the press releases and media.
If you want to buy an EV because it is better for air quality (arguably) in an inner city environment then knock yourself out, just don't pretend that you're doing anything to "save the planet" because you're not making any difference whatsoever.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Thursday 23 March 12:17
Soupdragon65 said:
bigothunter said:
Rate of change of atmospheric CO2 has been almost constant for the last 40 years.
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels appear to have peaked and may actually be declining now.
That's a misleadingly selective timeframe.CO2 emissions from fossil fuels appear to have peaked and may actually be declining now.
What you need to look at is the past 150 years compared to the last 10,000, that is the problem
Soupdragon65 said:
That's a misleadingly selective timeframe.
What you need to look at is the past 150 years compared to the last 10,000, that is the problem
Would appreciate your advice on the following issues:What you need to look at is the past 150 years compared to the last 10,000, that is the problem
Can atmospheric CO2 concentration ever be too low?
What are the acceptable lower and upper limits of atmospheric CO2 ppm?
What is the optimum CO2 ppm concentration?
ITP said:
GT9 said:
Strangely Brown said:
"...a very real issue facing today's motorists - the increasingly large divide between those who can afford a NEW CAR and those who cannot. Are NEW CARS a realistic and practical solution for all?"
FTFYTry writing it out 50 times, I find it helps:
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
.....
Trouble is, a 10 year old leaf, can be classed as a family car no problem, is still 4-5k. Affordable to many more of course. However, a 10 year old leaf has a range of about 50 miles, so it’s virtually useless.
Even 5k is a stretch for many of the poorest in society, who run about in 1-3k fords/Vauxhall etc. plus these will still do 300-400 miles range of course….
It comes back to the (too fast) rush to EV’s effectively pricing less well off people out of being able to have private transportation at all. As their older fords/Vauxhalls etc will be increasingly, punitively taxed off the road via euro 5/6/7 increments for charge zones, with the second hand old EV’s, as above, being useless range wise.
Maybe they could buy a newer petrol car, a euro 5 you may say. That’s great, as fairly soon this will be taxed heavily too when euro 6 is made minimum for charge zones. They have to sell again, losing more money.
But I guess this is another conversation about forcing some elements of society out of cars altogether, which increasingly appears to be the chose path.
How much does a 2023 Kia Niro with a range of 300 miles cost in 2038?
If they sell 100,000 Kia Niros in 2023 does that make any difference to the 2038 price, compared to a situation where they only sell 1,000?
If you want to see people enjoying cheap used cars in the future (as I do), then you also want to see a huge number of them selling new right now.
bigothunter said:
Soupdragon65 said:
That's a misleadingly selective timeframe.
What you need to look at is the past 150 years compared to the last 10,000, that is the problem
Would appreciate your advice on the following issues:What you need to look at is the past 150 years compared to the last 10,000, that is the problem
Can atmospheric CO2 concentration ever be too low?
What are the acceptable lower and upper limits of atmospheric CO2 ppm?
What is the optimum CO2 ppm concentration?
Strangely Brown said:
DonkeyApple said:
There are rumours growing that people might opt to just recharge at car parks while off doing other things rather than getting on the trains.
Wow! That would mean that, in order to be of practical use for everyone, every space would need to have a charger.I wonder what the power requirements for a reasonable car park of, say, 500 spaces might be.
Most EV users wouldn't need a Tescos bay with a charger as they can charge at home or work etc. What you're looking at is maybe 25% of spaces needing to be refuelling points.
Most of those chargers will be cheaper slow chargers as the average user will just need a small top up while the fast chargers will cost more per kWh for the convenience.
But the really interesting aspect is that most EVs will be arriving fully charged from home with cheap electricity and an interest in being able to plug their car in and actually sell an allotted amount of that electricity for a fair return. Ergo, car parks become energy trading hubs as much as energy purchasing points.
What you will also find is that properties without the ability to offer home charging will become more affordable while those that can recharge multiple EVs will get a value increase.
The wailing about EVs today will be nothing compared to the wailing about the impact on property values around 2035
The big legal change needed though is to make it illegal for the owner and operator of any remote charger to sell electricity. That must end. Regulation needs to change the operators to being brokers who can only levy a commission and where the electricity is only sold by utilities via a client's domestic account.
At the same time we ought to look to break the current system whereby an individual has to contract with a specific electricity vendor under contract and instead buy on the open market where all providers must perpetually bid via pricing to win business.
bigothunter said:
Soupdragon65 said:
That's a misleadingly selective timeframe.
What you need to look at is the past 150 years compared to the last 10,000, that is the problem
Would appreciate your advice on the following issues:What you need to look at is the past 150 years compared to the last 10,000, that is the problem
Can atmospheric CO2 concentration ever be too low?
What are the acceptable lower and upper limits of atmospheric CO2 ppm?
What is the optimum CO2 ppm concentration?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff