RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
911hope said:
The fuel used is a miniscule proportion of the problem.
Changing it is simply greenwashing.
Shut down every spectator profesional sport. They all require energy consumption.Changing it is simply greenwashing.
Some people have lost their mind, humans will always consume energy enjoying entertainment that are not essential to simply surviving.
If you want to simply exist, you have that choice, most people want and need more out of life than that.
DonkeyApple said:
Stuff about wealth
Sorry DA, but a lot of that is wrong-headed.1) I wasn't comparing to 20 years ago. I was comparing to 40 / 60 / 80 / 100 years ago. When the wealth distribution curve was substantially LESS unequal than it is now.
2) To address your key point - the standard of living of the majority of the population of the UK has FALLEN since 2007, and life expectancies for the majority of the population are now starting to follow suit.
3) The whole 'bigger cake' argument is fallacious, as it assumes that growth is always possible (It's emphatically not, as we are now seeing with both global warming and substantial extinctions), and is used as a veil for the exploitative classes to hide behind.
Summary: Since 2007 life for most people has got noticeably harder, while the wealth divide has increased substantially. And you don't think that's a problem?!?
Edited by havoc on Sunday 19th March 17:34
bigothunter said:
500TORQUES said:
911hope said:
Do they mention the fuel they burn moving the whole circus around the globe every couple of weeks and how irrelevant the car fuel and efficiency is?
That is already carbon neutral.
Actually F1 has a vague plan to be neutral by 2030.
If anyone doesn't believe me, read their own presentation. (link below)
In it you will find that the proportion used by the cars is 0.7%
You will also find that their estimated emissions (just statements without underlying facts, so who knows if it relates to reality) conveniently omits the impact of 100's of thousands of spectator journeys.
https://corp.formula1.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/...
Strangely Brown said:
None of this argument about engine efficiency and stuff makes any difference to me. Nor does any arguments about how the electricity is generated or supplied to the chargers, even if they can be made reasonably ubiquitous.
The elephant in the room and the main reason that I have zero interest in an electric car, even if it were the same price as the ICE equivalent, is charge time. If it means that I have to wait inordinate amounts of time to buy another 100 miles or so of range then it's a non-starter. It is not even a consideration.
You can only get the electrons from the grid into the battery so fast and, as it stands, that is not good enough.
Do you drive while you are sleeping? That’s when most people chargeThe elephant in the room and the main reason that I have zero interest in an electric car, even if it were the same price as the ICE equivalent, is charge time. If it means that I have to wait inordinate amounts of time to buy another 100 miles or so of range then it's a non-starter. It is not even a consideration.
You can only get the electrons from the grid into the battery so fast and, as it stands, that is not good enough.
911hope said:
The operations certainly are NOT carbon neutral.
Actually F1 has a vague plan to be neutral by 2030.
If anyone doesn't believe me, read their own presentation. (link below)
In it you will find that the proportion used by the cars is 0.7%
You will also find that their estimated emissions (just statements without underlying facts, so who knows if it relates to reality) conveniently omits the impact of 100's of thousands of spectator journeys.
https://corp.formula1.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/...
You didn't read the later posts.Actually F1 has a vague plan to be neutral by 2030.
If anyone doesn't believe me, read their own presentation. (link below)
In it you will find that the proportion used by the cars is 0.7%
You will also find that their estimated emissions (just statements without underlying facts, so who knows if it relates to reality) conveniently omits the impact of 100's of thousands of spectator journeys.
https://corp.formula1.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/...
That document is 3 years out of date too.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.net-zer...
Soupdragon65 said:
Strangely Brown said:
None of this argument about engine efficiency and stuff makes any difference to me. Nor does any arguments about how the electricity is generated or supplied to the chargers, even if they can be made reasonably ubiquitous.
The elephant in the room and the main reason that I have zero interest in an electric car, even if it were the same price as the ICE equivalent, is charge time. If it means that I have to wait inordinate amounts of time to buy another 100 miles or so of range then it's a non-starter. It is not even a consideration.
You can only get the electrons from the grid into the battery so fast and, as it stands, that is not good enough.
Do you drive while you are sleeping? That’s when most people chargeThe elephant in the room and the main reason that I have zero interest in an electric car, even if it were the same price as the ICE equivalent, is charge time. If it means that I have to wait inordinate amounts of time to buy another 100 miles or so of range then it's a non-starter. It is not even a consideration.
You can only get the electrons from the grid into the battery so fast and, as it stands, that is not good enough.
I can refuel my ICE car at the rate of approx 100 miles / minute (500 miles range, under 5 minutes to fill the tank). Given that the average EV runs about 3 miles per kWH... OK let's be generous and say 4... no let's be really really generous and say 5 miles per kWH the time to fill 100 miles at a 50kW charger, assuming your car will accept that rate, is 24 minutes. That's unacceptable. People cannot be expected to add 20, 40, 60 minutes plus to their journeys, even if they manage to find a charger that is both working and empty when they reach it.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 19th March 16:59
Strangely Brown said:
Why do you people always assume that people have the ability to charge at home, and in any case how would a home charger help if you need to charge while on a longer trip?
I can refuel my ICE car at the rate of approx 100 miles / minute (500 miles range, under 5 minutes to fill the tank). Given that the average EV runs about 3 miles per kWH... OK let's be generous and say 4... no let's be really really generous and say 5 miles per kWH the time to fill 100 miles at a 50kW charger, assuming your car will accept that rate, is 24 minutes. That's unacceptable. People cannot be expected to add 20, 40, 60 minutes plus to their journeys, even if they manage to find a charger that is both working and empty when they reach it.
Electric cars charge at over 250kW already.I can refuel my ICE car at the rate of approx 100 miles / minute (500 miles range, under 5 minutes to fill the tank). Given that the average EV runs about 3 miles per kWH... OK let's be generous and say 4... no let's be really really generous and say 5 miles per kWH the time to fill 100 miles at a 50kW charger, assuming your car will accept that rate, is 24 minutes. That's unacceptable. People cannot be expected to add 20, 40, 60 minutes plus to their journeys, even if they manage to find a charger that is both working and empty when they reach it.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 19th March 16:40
It takes 5 minutes to add 100 miles of range.
JD said:
Strangely Brown said:
Why do you people always assume that everyone has the ability to charge at home, and in any case how would a home charger help if you need to charge while on a longer trip?
I can refuel my ICE car at the rate of approx 100 miles / minute (500 miles range, under 5 minutes to fill the tank). Given that the average EV runs about 3 miles per kWH... OK let's be generous and say 4... no let's be really really generous and say 5 miles per kWH the time to fill 100 miles at a 50kW charger, assuming your car will accept that rate, is 24 minutes. That's unacceptable. People cannot be expected to add 20, 40, 60 minutes plus to their journeys, even if they manage to find a charger that is both working and empty when they reach it.
Electric cars charge at over 250kW already.I can refuel my ICE car at the rate of approx 100 miles / minute (500 miles range, under 5 minutes to fill the tank). Given that the average EV runs about 3 miles per kWH... OK let's be generous and say 4... no let's be really really generous and say 5 miles per kWH the time to fill 100 miles at a 50kW charger, assuming your car will accept that rate, is 24 minutes. That's unacceptable. People cannot be expected to add 20, 40, 60 minutes plus to their journeys, even if they manage to find a charger that is both working and empty when they reach it.
It takes 5 minutes to add 100 miles of range.
Oh, and that's still 5 times slower than refilling a petrol tank.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 19th March 17:03
500TORQUES said:
911hope said:
The operations certainly are NOT carbon neutral.
Actually F1 has a vague plan to be neutral by 2030.
If anyone doesn't believe me, read their own presentation. (link below)
In it you will find that the proportion used by the cars is 0.7%
You will also find that their estimated emissions (just statements without underlying facts, so who knows if it relates to reality) conveniently omits the impact of 100's of thousands of spectator journeys.
https://corp.formula1.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/...
You didn't read the later posts.Actually F1 has a vague plan to be neutral by 2030.
If anyone doesn't believe me, read their own presentation. (link below)
In it you will find that the proportion used by the cars is 0.7%
You will also find that their estimated emissions (just statements without underlying facts, so who knows if it relates to reality) conveniently omits the impact of 100's of thousands of spectator journeys.
https://corp.formula1.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/...
That document is 3 years out of date too.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.net-zer...
You have stated that F1 is already carbon neutral, which it clearly is NOT.
"That is already carbon neutral." Your words at 12:50pm
The F1 2019 report states this and outlines their vague plan for carbon neutral by 2030.
You then reference a new article, which referenced toe 2019 report and says exactly the same stuff.
So, you have provided more evidence that your prior assertion is wrong.
Do you accept that?
Strangely Brown said:
Nope. SOME electric cars can charge at over 250kW at SOME chargers. That is not the reality for the vast majority of electric cars on the road or the market.
Well then I recommend you stay with your ICE for the next 20 years, and then if you’re still alive, buy an EV that can charge very quickly, if that’s of great importance to you. Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 19th March 16:58
SpeckledJim said:
Well then I recommend you stay with your ICE for the next 20 years, and then if you’re still alive, buy an EV that can charge very quickly, if that’s of great importance to you.
Wow. Dismissive and insulting in equal measure. I guess that's the elephant put down then.Strangely Brown said:
SpeckledJim said:
Well then I recommend you stay with your ICE for the next 20 years, and then if you’re still alive, buy an EV that can charge very quickly, if that’s of great importance to you.
Wow. Dismissive and insulting in equal measure. I guess that's the elephant put down then.911hope said:
Not sure what you think you have said in prior posts.
You have stated that F1 is already carbon neutral, which it clearly is NOT.
"That is already carbon neutral." Your words at 12:50pm
The F1 2019 report states this and outlines their vague plan for carbon neutral by 2030.
You then reference a new article, which referenced toe 2019 report and says exactly the same stuff.
So, you have provided more evidence that your prior assertion is wrong.
Do you accept that?
I already commented on my first post, what's up with you?You have stated that F1 is already carbon neutral, which it clearly is NOT.
"That is already carbon neutral." Your words at 12:50pm
The F1 2019 report states this and outlines their vague plan for carbon neutral by 2030.
You then reference a new article, which referenced toe 2019 report and says exactly the same stuff.
So, you have provided more evidence that your prior assertion is wrong.
Do you accept that?
911hope said:
bigothunter said:
DonkeyApple said:
The trouble is that there is no innovation involved in Liberty engaging Goldmans to calculate how many carbon credits to purchase on the open market to offset a fraction of the CO2 and general pollution a wholly unnecessary enterprise creates. 
I don't envy F1 these days as there is nothing they can do to truly fix the reality that they won't even be able to argue their waste is offset by trickle down to the road ICe market in a decade's time.
ICE Motorsport is only going to come under greater and greater assault from more and more corners as people seek to kill it off for good as they hate it, what it stands for and the sort of people who enjoy it.
Very sad.
To survive long term, Formula 1 needs to go fully electric. Fundamentally an upgraded Formula E.I don't envy F1 these days as there is nothing they can do to truly fix the reality that they won't even be able to argue their waste is offset by trickle down to the road ICe market in a decade's time.
ICE Motorsport is only going to come under greater and greater assault from more and more corners as people seek to kill it off for good as they hate it, what it stands for and the sort of people who enjoy it.
Very sad.
ICE motorsport will become the domain of historic vehicles.
Changing it is simply greenwashing.
No one cares about Formula E. You have to to beg to get corporate hospitality to an F1 event whereas with Formula E you have to beg companies to stop throwing worthless tickets at you. They're utterly rubbish events.
If some Chilean tramp booze helps keep modern motorsport smelly and noisy then it has a value in that regard.
Strangely Brown said:
SpeckledJim said:
Well then I recommend you stay with your ICE for the next 20 years, and then if you’re still alive, buy an EV that can charge very quickly, if that’s of great importance to you.
Wow. Dismissive and insulting in equal measure. I guess that's the elephant put down then.
t. DonkeyApple said:
Strangely Brown said:
SpeckledJim said:
Well then I recommend you stay with your ICE for the next 20 years, and then if you’re still alive, buy an EV that can charge very quickly, if that’s of great importance to you.
Wow. Dismissive and insulting in equal measure. I guess that's the elephant put down then.t. I am not anti-EV. I am not anti-BEV either. They have their place for people with a usage profile that fits. What I am against is the blinkered BEV only approach that this country is forcing us down.
"Seeing the real numbers through the PR bulls
t" is excellent advice and should also be applied to "The Science" that is driving this net-zero crap.Strangely Brown said:
DonkeyApple said:
Strangely Brown said:
SpeckledJim said:
Well then I recommend you stay with your ICE for the next 20 years, and then if you’re still alive, buy an EV that can charge very quickly, if that’s of great importance to you.
Wow. Dismissive and insulting in equal measure. I guess that's the elephant put down then.t. I am not anti-EV. I am not anti-BEV either. They have their place for people with a usage profile that fits. What I am against is the blinkered BEV only approach that this country is forcing us down.
"Seeing the real numbers through the PR bulls
t" is excellent advice and should also be applied to "The Science" that is driving this net-zero crap.SpeckledJim said:
Strangely Brown said:
SpeckledJim said:
What does this mean?
Do you think that batteries are the only fuel source for vehicles with an electric drivetrain?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff