RE: Uncertainty over EU ICE ban resolved

[EVOTECH3BELL]

Stumbled onto the health side of thr forum i see.

[Unreal]

df76 said:

starsky67 said:

DonkeyApple said:

starsky67 said:

How will the network to deliver efuels be financially possible when the numbers of cars that have to use it will be so small?

There won’t be pumps at every filling station

Existing vehicles either won’t be able to use it or will continue to use fossil fuel as they will be cheaper.

You will fill up at race tracks, private clubs and Michelin starred establishments.

And maybe a special pump outside Harrods so you can fill up for the Chelsea drag strip?

It’ll be interesting to see whether it ever becomes available on a forecourt.. and there will be a tipping point where petrol stations start to disappear / get converted into rapid charge stations.

You can get race fuel barrels delivered to home, so perhaps it’ll be the same for E-fuels.

Maybe it's for the EV thread but in my experience when petrol stations close they are converted to mini-supermarkets or blocks of flats.

I'd like to understand how a conversion to a charging centre would work, in both the practical and financial sense. Just that really, I don't want to derail the discussion into the area of everyone being able to charge at home, via lamp posts, etc.

Edited by Unreal on Thursday 30th March 11:35

[Arsecati]

DriveSnowdonia said:

Yes whatever, but this does not change the fact that there is nothing unhealthy about eating well reared, non processed red meat. Have you ever though that if you did eat meat, perhaps your marathon times would be even better? Or do you supplement with Creatine, Carnosine, L-carnitine, etc?

A) Where did I mention anything about the health/unhealth benefits of eating red meat: or any meat for that matter?

B) To answer your third point, I already told you, I don't 'supplement' my diet with anything - I don't need to, and nor should anyone else who eats a properly balanced diet (which I clearly stated was NOT a 'vegan' diet).

C) I'm not a professional athlete - I do it for fun, and at the age of 51, still racing against athletes in their prime of 20's and 30's. I NEVER finish outside the top 10% of any marathon I enter (and Helsinki last August was top 5%), and I haven't touched meat in over 30 years. Where are all these 51 year old meat eating marathon runners you speak of who are running faster, considering I'm always faster than at least 90% of every other runner that enters?

Did I mention the 3 Ironmans? I'm also a fully qualified Triathlon Coach certified by Triathlon Ireland (where I'll also be competing this year, on top of the 4 marathons), though I don't charge anything, as I don't need the money and would rather give my time/knowledge for free at my local Triathlon Coach to those with lower confidence or body image issues to help them get in to the sport. That means I'm also pretty au fait with all current nutrition studies according to the World Triathlon body - being someone who actively practices what they preach (pretty successfully if I am to be so bold). I have no idea what your 'better half's' qualification is in, but certainly nobody is actively encouraging red meat as some sort of 'super performance booster' in regards to sports science: chicken or fish, yep, knock yourself out (and yes, even as a vegetarian, I'm quite happy to recommend them as sources of nutrients to non-vegetarians - as I said before, I don't preach: each to their own). But as you are already well aware (though conveniently changing the subject) my point was to not conflate vegetarians with vegans, and your insistence that vegetarians 'need supplements'...... did your 'better half' not teach you anything?

[GT9]

DriveSnowdonia said:

GT9 said:

I eat meat but there's nothing like burying your head in the sand is there.
Ask your wife to watch The Game Changers on Netflix and see she makes of all that.

Might give it a watch but from first impressions, it seems like it's just a biased pro-vegan propaganda piece based on selective use of science and is easily de-bunked.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/game-changers...

Summary from your own link:

SUMMARY
Some of the assertions in “The Game Changers” ring true. Vegan diets appear to have heart health and anticancer benefits compared with omnivorous diets, and diligent planning can ensure you’re getting adequate protein and essential nutrients.

Why not watch it and debunk it yourself rather than just posting a link to the first google hit you got, without actually reading the link.

[GT9]

DriveSnowdonia said:

And it also says "“The Game Changers” has several notable drawbacks, including a strong pro-vegan bias and reliance on small, unscientific studies."

God, it's like banging your head against a wall. Let's agree to disagree.

So the summary is wrong, but that statement is correct.
You are very selective in what you are willing to believe.
Might be worth googling confirmation bias whilst you have the keyboard revved up.

[DonkeyApple]

D4rez said:

https://www.ft.com/content/fc30e68a-afb1-49f8-8560...

Ahhhhh, that’s better. Confirmed not for the UK

Edited by D4rez on Thursday 30th March 11:24

This week. The Swedish Bakers Association haven't been lobbying middle aged used car vendors this week.

[SWoll]

DriveSnowdonia said:

GT9 said:

I eat meat but there's nothing like burying your head in the sand is there.
Ask your wife to watch The Game Changers on Netflix and see she makes of all that.

Might give it a watch but from first impressions, it seems like it's just a biased pro-vegan propaganda piece based on selective use of science and is easily de-bunked.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/game-changers...

Edited by DriveSnowdonia on Thursday 30th March 11:06

Netlfix pushing politically motivated propaganda documentaries? Surely not!

[Arsecati]

DriveSnowdonia said:

You do preach, and you point is?

I responded originally to a delusional poster on here who said that:

"Eating meat is not good for your longterm health and leads to all kinds of lovely diseases, cancers and heart problems, which ultimately we all pay for."

and:

"Personally i think we should all eat less meat."

Which implied that he thought we all should be like him - despite the fact he was deluded.

So far when challenged, this poster has obfuscated the issue and has yet to provide any conclusive, high quality science that backs up his claims.

Then you come along on the defensive and espousing the virtues of a vegetarian diet, wrapped up with some bragging about your triathlon times (which none of us give a st about and are not particularly impressive in any case).

Yet I have never attacked a vegetarian diet, I just merely asked if you take any supplements and said that eating meat does not make you more susceptible to diseases as backed up by the current scientific thinking. Good for you if you can make a vegetarian diet work for you I say, but it's not for me knowing what I know.

Anyway, I give up, and as with the other poster, let's agree to disagree.

That's some pretty pathetic deflection there buddy.

The one and only thing I pulled you up on was:

'There is a good reason why vegetarians and vegans normally need to supplement heavily if they are to avoid certain health issues.'

I corrected you in regards to a vegetarian diet NOT being the same as a vegan diet, and that vegetarians do NOT need supplements, as they can still get everything they need from eggs and dairy, (as opposed to a vegan diet, which you incorrectly conflated it with). It wasn't difficult friend, but you've done nothing but avoid and deflect the point since, still injecting irrelevant points on subjects I never said a word against. I don't give a monkeys what your opinions are on eating red meat or not - that's your business: just don't start spouting false statements like the one I highlighted, it's that simple.

Though I also don't know why I've bothered replying to you anyway, as you've deflected each and every point made to you by every other poster also - 'knowing what you know'!

'Not particularly impressive in any case'? Coming from someone who I guess would struggle to run a bath, never mind a mile, I'm truly distraught by your uncalled for attack on my fragile ego!!!

[df76]

DonkeyApple said:

df76 said:

starsky67 said:

DonkeyApple said:

starsky67 said:

How will the network to deliver efuels be financially possible when the numbers of cars that have to use it will be so small?

There won’t be pumps at every filling station

Existing vehicles either won’t be able to use it or will continue to use fossil fuel as they will be cheaper.

You will fill up at race tracks, private clubs and Michelin starred establishments.

And maybe a special pump outside Harrods so you can fill up for the Chelsea drag strip?

It’ll be interesting to see whether it ever becomes available on a forecourt.. and there will be a tipping point where petrol stations start to disappear / get converted into rapid charge stations.

You can get race fuel barrels delivered to home, so perhaps it’ll be the same for E-fuels.

No reason why they can't be on forecourts that are in the catchment area for the affluent non urban inhabitants.

The issue with domestic petrol deliveries is that the insurance industry limits how much petrol their customers are allowed at home but if you have a lid of land and outbuildings then you can already have Aspen deliver their zero ethanol petrol for your classics.

Yes, domestic storage will be an issue. Markets are going to dictate how it's distributed, and it would appear that it will start from a very very low base to start with. You would need some certainty that the market would develop over time, and it would be a huge infrastructure commitment. I'd be amazed if it was readily available across the country from day one, and that combined with the cost plus the ease of charging an EV won't be attractive to the vast majority. It'll be interesting to see how quickly it develops (I haven't seen any industry predictions on the market share yet, but that'll be telling).

[PastelNata]

Arsecati said:

If you're going to make stupid statements, then at least get your facts right. Vegetarians and vegans are NOT the same in any way, shape or form. Yes, vegans absolutely need either supplements or fortified foods to ensure they get the correct nutrition to maintain a healthy existence, so is both unnatural and unhealthy in my opinion. But vegetarians most definitely do NOT: Eggs, milk, cheese, etc., all still staples of a vegetarian diet - not a supplement in sight, so please do not conflate the two, thank you.

(I'm a 3 time 10 hour Ironman, will be running my 17th marathon in Lithuania in 3 weeks time with 3 more booked later in the year, I finished 33/640+ at the Helsinki Marathon last August, even though I'm 51 competing against 20-30 year olds. And yes, I'm vegetarian, and have been for well over 30 years - though I NEVER preach about it and keep my opinions about it to myself, unless provoked by others spouting misinformation of course!)

Well as a fellow athlete, I for one applaud your achievements, well done.

I'm still competitive too, at 54. I won all my MTB races last year in my age category, finishing top 10 overall in each - out of fields of 300-600. I'm purely a cyclist though and focus only upon that. I've collected nearly 400 Strava KOM's in training in 3 countries (mostly road) since I joined it 3 years ago; all held by much younger guys, some Pro.

I guess, like you, I get a confidence boost from being competitive against much younger athletes.

I'm more meat than vegetables though in my diet; chicken making up the most of my meat intake. I ride with vegetarians and vegans, all strong. A woman I ride with is doing the Fred Whitton this year, and is 51, she's 100% vegan but does take energy and hydration supplements. But then, so do I. Indeed, everyone I know who races or trains a lot does in the form of SiS, NamedSport products etc. I suppose the vegans are also taking vitamins but never asked.

[Arsecati]

PastelNata said:

I guess, like you, I get a confidence boost from being competitive against much younger athletes.

There's no getting away from it...... it is still a bit of a rush putting it up against the younger lads!!

But many thanks for the comment, and pretty bloody impressive yourself!! I am kinda wincing reading back what I wrote though, but I think it was the red mist that took over when I read his 'misleading' comment! But like yourself, it is a great confidence boost, and was pretty much the reason why I did the coaching badge too. So many 'older' lads (and ladies!) would ask me how I got in to triathlons/running, but always reply with the same thing: 'ahh, but sure I can't swim', or 'my knees couldn't cope', etc., when in reality - it was just confidence. I loved coaching/instructing, so just decided to formalise it, and so would work specifically with those of lower confidence/body image issues, to ease them in to the sport, improve ability/confidence/etc., and just grin when seeing them finish their first 'try-a-tri' or 'couch to 5km' event. I've trained loads of people through there first marathons now, 2 'Ironmen' and a good few half-IM's, and the buzz of seeing them succeed never fades: more than a few times I've shed tears with them, but hey.... while I still think I can, I'll keep on doing it!! ;)

50+ years of age? Means absolutely nothing!!!

[df76]

df76 said:

DonkeyApple said:

df76 said:

starsky67 said:

DonkeyApple said:

starsky67 said:

How will the network to deliver efuels be financially possible when the numbers of cars that have to use it will be so small?

There won’t be pumps at every filling station

Existing vehicles either won’t be able to use it or will continue to use fossil fuel as they will be cheaper.

You will fill up at race tracks, private clubs and Michelin starred establishments.

And maybe a special pump outside Harrods so you can fill up for the Chelsea drag strip?

It’ll be interesting to see whether it ever becomes available on a forecourt.. and there will be a tipping point where petrol stations start to disappear / get converted into rapid charge stations.

You can get race fuel barrels delivered to home, so perhaps it’ll be the same for E-fuels.

No reason why they can't be on forecourts that are in the catchment area for the affluent non urban inhabitants.

The issue with domestic petrol deliveries is that the insurance industry limits how much petrol their customers are allowed at home but if you have a lid of land and outbuildings then you can already have Aspen deliver their zero ethanol petrol for your classics.

Yes, domestic storage will be an issue. Markets are going to dictate how it's distributed, and it would appear that it will start from a very very low base to start with. You would need some certainty that the market would develop over time, and it would be a huge infrastructure commitment. I'd be amazed if it was readily available across the country from day one, and that combined with the cost plus the ease of charging an EV won't be attractive to the vast majority. It'll be interesting to see how quickly it develops (I haven't seen any industry predictions on the market share yet, but that'll be telling).

It seems to be meaningless in the context of the UK anyway, I’m reading the latest transport sections of the government net zero strategy and there is no allowance for “e-fuel” vehicles. These will not be permitted for general sale after 2035 given the current proposals.

[starsky67]

If the UK doesn’t allow efuel vehicles after 2035 (the current government have said they won’t and it’s inconceivable that the next one likely labour would change that position) then it’s game over for ICE in the U.K. as there would not be enough time or incentive for manufacturers to develop the necessary models.

It will also leave Porsche etc in a quandry. The UK is an important 911 and GT3 market for them. Are they really going to develop a range of EV cars for the UK as well as a range of synthetic fuel cars for Europe only? What about the rest of the world.

The lack of certainty would make pursuing an ICE platform very risky and expensive.

And what about hybrids in the meantime? There would need to be a third range of hybrid sports cars to fill in the 5 year gap from 2030 to 2035.

For these and other reasons I doubt synthetic fuel road cars will happen.

[DonkeyApple]

starsky67 said:

If the UK doesn’t allow efuel vehicles after 2035 (the current government have said they won’t and it’s inconceivable that the next one likely labour would change that position) then it’s game over for ICE in the U.K. as there would not be enough time or incentive for manufacturers to develop the necessary models.

It will also leave Porsche etc in a quandry. The UK is an important 911 and GT3 market for them. Are they really going to develop a range of EV cars for the UK as well as a range of synthetic fuel cars for Europe only? What about the rest of the world.

The lack of certainty would make pursuing an ICE platform very risky and expensive.

And what about hybrids in the meantime? There would need to be a third range of hybrid sports cars to fill in the 5 year gap from 2030 to 2035.

For these and other reasons I doubt synthetic fuel road cars will happen.

It's really a total irrelevance. The amount of efuel that can ever be manufactured is too small to be a viable market for road cars.

It's about manufacturing jobs in the EU and nothing to do with keeping people who can't afford a brand new EV mobile after 2035. That role falls firmly down to real petrol.

[D4rez]

starsky67 said:

If the UK doesn’t allow efuel vehicles after 2035 (the current government have said they won’t and it’s inconceivable that the next one likely labour would change that position) then it’s game over for ICE in the U.K. as there would not be enough time or incentive for manufacturers to develop the necessary models.

It will also leave Porsche etc in a quandry. The UK is an important 911 and GT3 market for them. Are they really going to develop a range of EV cars for the UK as well as a range of synthetic fuel cars for Europe only? What about the rest of the world.

The lack of certainty would make pursuing an ICE platform very risky and expensive.

And what about hybrids in the meantime? There would need to be a third range of hybrid sports cars to fill in the 5 year gap from 2030 to 2035.

For these and other reasons I doubt synthetic fuel road cars will happen.

This is the correct answer, the fuel is a sham and the overwhelming majority on here can't afford it and are UK based (where it's not allowed by law). So yes, the ICE engine is on its way out here

[Talksteer]

Muzzer79 said:

Difficult to read future petrol/diesel prices. On the one hand, Govt want to get people away from it. On the other hand, the poorest in society can't afford EV/Hybrids so rely on older ICE-powered vehicles.

There is also the question of transport not suited to electrical power - notably trucks. They will still need diesel at a sensible rate to keep goods moving.

Given that the Tesla Semi is already doing 500 miles on a charge with current technology I don't think it's a massive stretch to assume that heavy vehicles will adapt to EV propulsion.

The issue for any other usage is likely to be that the bottom will fall out of the fuel distribution system and there will be pressure to decarbonise.

I had the chance to talk to the bloke doing the engineering work for JCB hydrogen and concluded that it was basically the result of poor systems thinking (how to replicate current operating patterns and systems on machines designed with a diesel rather than working out how to move mud with zero emissions) and rather wishfully assuming that there will be hydrogen to buy.

Basically it made it look like they were doing something and it potentially let them out back the date when they have to properly reengineer their equipment for full EV usage.