On 20/05/2021 10:56, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 21:11, Tim Streater wrote:

1) We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age.

2) We are in an interglacial and can expect to return to a period of
severe
glaciation.


I understand there are lots of pet theories that it's all to do with the
sun, etc. However, the downside with those theories being wrong is
horrendous.

FTAOD I'm not disputing the likelihood of climate change, just the
hyperbolic (not to say hysterical) exaggerations of its effects.

And of course the dishonest accounts of what it will cost. Eg have you
seen how terraced houses with solid walls and suspended floors are meant
to be brought into the brave new world* while still occupied? And what
it will cost (especially if you pay attention to the risks of rot which
may well militate for replacing timber suspended floors by
block-and-beam or solid)?

*underfloor insulation; underfloor heating or new, larger radiators,
internal or external wall insulation; heat pump;

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 20/05/2021 09:05, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 08:37:12 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Fredxx
wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just
pauses to visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St.
Malo, a visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to
a hardware shop for woodworm spray, to the house, back to
Calais, across to Dover and back to Manchester. Three of us,
over a weekend, so as not to lose time off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't
be charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you
were visiting. Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available
near everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why? Anything is possible. At one time, you had to buy petrol from
a chemist shop.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had
done the paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time
disconnected and we only stopped there long enough to look (bought
as seen on the day) and again for an hour to spray woodworm
killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

Not been around when petrol was in short supply? I have been.

Not even I can recall the Suez crisis! :-)

Much later than that. Early 70s. Can remember queuing for petrol and
being restricted to a few gallons.

wiki says 1973.

I remember having petrol coupons in 1973-74.

I am pretty sure that they were issued, but never put into use.
Individual garages typically put their own limits of 3 gallons on instead.

On 20/05/2021 11:21, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 20:47, Robin wrote:

Perhaps they are just using the loss of ability to travel as an
example of the way the scale and cost of the changes required to
deliver "net zero" with current technology continue to be kept from
the vast majority of the public.


"Continue to be kept from ..." - Are you suggesting a conspiracy, or
simply that many people haven't given this much though?


Not a conspiracy as such, just a general approach of not scaring the
sheep. See my reply to your earlier post (which I sent before seeing
this) for one example. Another are assumptions about reduction in
ownersip and use of private cars: may be necessary and delioverable but,
I suggest, are delioberately kept low profile.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Thu, 20 May 2021 11:33:11 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

On 20/05/2021 11:19, Scion wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 00:54:36 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

On 20/05/2021 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to
stop occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience
unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to
get to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

How can you plan for a sudden death and the funeral being the next
day,
on the far side of Ireland?

If you can't get there, you don't go. Just like today if relatives
lived in NZ for example.

But we can get to Ireland with *existing* vehicles. The problem is that
we are being pushed to replacement vehicles that cannot make the same
journey. We simply want to maintain the same ability that we have now
and not go backwards.

Sure, that's what we want. But *if* climate doom is true and *if* stopping
fossil fuel was the answer then need would replace want.

On 20/05/2021 10:56, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 21:11, Tim Streater wrote:

1) We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age.

2) We are in an interglacial and can expect to return to a period of
severe
glaciation.


I understand there are lots of pet theories that it's all to do with the
sun, etc. However, the downside with those theories being wrong is
horrendous.

Meanwhile, no-one seems to be blocking roads with demos because of
the rampant increase in the world population

On Wed, 19 May 2021 14:56:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

I would imagine a smart plug/socket arrangement with a barcode on the
cars socket linked to a debit card, and a charging regime, that would
allow no current to flow until a valid car was in fact plugged in,

snip

And the last bit is what I understand happens already, no charge is
applied until all the right signals come back (as a make learned with
his re-badged Chevy Volt and 'faulty' charging socket connector).
snip

I think that several things will in fact happen.

1. Fuel cars may be banned from residential town areas,

Already happening in many 'pedestrianised areas of course.

but they will
not disappear.

There is no suggestion they will (in the foreseeable).

2. Urban car ownership will decline,

Agreed.

with fully charged driverless taxis
being the urban norm

Mostly in the form of better more granular Public Transport.

3. Charge times will reduce a lot

Agreed, even if only at 'Super' (more expensive) charging points.

4. Range will increase a little.

Range could increase a lot when we realise that luxuries and speed
affect range.

5. 'Renewable' energy will vanish

In your dreams.

6. Nuclear power will run everything.

In your dreams.

People will tell you that 'the sun
is renewable and it's a nuclear reactor innit' in a massive exercise in
doublethink

Except that particular nuclear reactor is 151.39 million km from us so
much safer and less likely to be used for nefarious purposes. Best to
make better use of that by collecting it's output using a mixture of
techniques.

7. As fossil fuel costs increase, synthetic hydrocarbons rather than
hydrogen will replace them. Since these will use CO2 and water to make
them they will be considered 'renewable'

Cool.

8. But mostly, we will be (nuclear) electric where ever possible for
everything

Nuclear powered long range high speed electric ferries / transports
with (onboard vehicle) charging will replace much aero / freight
movement.

Cheers, T i m

On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

But unless you are of a certain religion, there is plenty of
warning about when the funeral will take place, allowing a bit
of forward route planning.

On 20/05/2021 11:33, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/05/2021 11:19, Scion wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 00:54:36 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

On 20/05/2021 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to
stop occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

How can you plan for a sudden death and the funeral being the next day,
on the far side of Ireland?

If you can't get there, you don't go. Just like today if relatives lived
in NZ for example.

But we can get to Ireland with *existing* vehicles. The problem is that
we are being pushed to replacement vehicles that cannot make the same
journey. We simply want to maintain the same ability that we have now
and not go backwards.


Just because you can does not automatically mean that you must.

Steve Walker wrote:
But we can get to Ireland with *existing* vehicles. The problem is that
we are being pushed to replacement vehicles that cannot make the same
journey. We simply want to maintain the same ability that we have now
and not go backwards.

So that sounds like a business opportunity: quick access to ICE cars for EV
owners who need them on an occasional basis.

It almost already exists: car clubs where you can pick up a car from the
street and use it for an hour or two. You just book the vehicle with your
phone, swipe your phone/card on the vehicle and it opens. The only thing is
the pricing of those doesn't work for long journeys, because they're
designed to be close enough for people without cars to walk to and are
priced to prevent people hogging them for a long time.

Given you might have an EV already, it would be feasible to drive say 10
miles to a car rental place where you can rapidly pick up an ICE car at any
time of the day or night (without humans with all the annoying rental
paperwork and upsell you get from traditional firms). You leave your EV
there (charging?) and continue in the ICE.

This way you get the benefits of an EV for the rest of the time.

This would address another market too: people who drive an enormous SUV just
because they need to tow a boat or a caravan once a year, and pay for it the
rest of the year in terrible fuel consumption.

It just requires a tiny amount of adjustment from your current lifestyle.

Theo

On Thu, 20 May 2021 20:25:17 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

You can do it with pipes but I think the cost / risk (with
petrol, compared with water or gas) wouldn't be viable,

It is actually. Done with airports and ports all the time now.

Except your reply was premature, that aren't spread across the country
or operated by 'Joe Public'.

And with that pipeline that just got hacked in the USA too.

See above.

especially retrospectively throughout a density populated
country like ours (and for direct usage by Joe Public).

Works fine with airports, ports etc.

See above.

I know they 'can' pump all sort of stuff fairly long distances (Dad
was on Shell Tankers for 12 years) but it's funny that after 100 years
of the IC engine, they still don't (for Joe Public to access)?

Cheers, T i m

On 19/05/2021 17:01, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:45, charles wrote:

The problem comes when the place where you take
a planned break is not the same place as the one where you can charge
the car.

Surely, if everybody has electric cars, that won't be a problem? At the
moment, there's very little electric car infrastructure, as there are
very few electric cars.

so, a picnic spot in the wilds of nowhere is going to have a charging
poit?


All right, that's a fair point. However, I don't think it justifies
ruining the planet.

In any case, my wife refuses to pee in the bushes, so we'll have to go
somewhere with a more or less decent loo.


https://www.shewee.com/

On 20/05/2021 11:21, GB wrote:

Clearly, if semi-arid regions become arid, that will lead to major
difficulties for a significant chunk of the world's population.


One giant step for those humans, one small step for humanity?


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 20/05/2021 10:56, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 21:11, Tim Streater wrote:

1) We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age.

2) We are in an interglacial and can expect to return to a period of
severe
glaciation.


I understand there are lots of pet theories that it's all to do with the
sun, etc. However, the downside with those theories being wrong is
horrendous.

Meanwhile, no-one seems to be blocking roads with demos because of the
rampant increase in the world population

Because that problem is fixing itself.

India and China, by far the two most populous counties,
COMBINED, isnt even self replacing anymore.

On 20/05/2021 00:17, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:04, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done
the paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time
disconnected and we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as
seen on the day) and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a
house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a
petrol or
diesel car.

I'd considered that as a possibility when thinking about buying an
electric
car.Â* Ah - I'm 81 and hiring a car if you're over 80 it is, apparently,
very difficult.

Not much help anyway when you find an answerphone message at 5pm saying
that your wife's uncle has died and his funeral is on the far side of
Ireland, at 11am either. Too late to get a flight organised, get the
kids to my parents and and get through airport security that night. The
earliest flight in the morning arriving at Belfast or Dublin too late to
pick up a hire car and get to the funeral. Too late to organise and pick
up a hire car in the UK, book the ferry with the right registration
details and get going. The only choice to drive and use the ferry in our
own car - with no time to charge before leaving, no time to charge
en-route and no time to charge (unless the hotel hosting the meal had
chargers) before heading home again.

And we have had multiple occasions of short notice funerals due a large
extended family (M-I-L one of 8 siblings, F-I-L one of 13).

Relocate back to Ireland and 'work from home' ?

On 19/05/2021 15:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Steve Walker wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware
shop
for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to Dover and
back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not to lose time
off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were
visiting.
Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it


The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done
the paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time
disconnected and we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as
seen on the day) and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.



Only takes one difficult-to-extinguish EV lithium battery fire on
a ferry or in La Shuttle and suddenly there will be new restrictions.

On 19/05/2021 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware
shop for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to
Dover and back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not
to lose time off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were
visiting. Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near
everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why? Anything is possible. At one time, you had to buy petrol from a
chemist shop.


And Olive oil for food preparation.

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote
T i m wrote

You can do it with pipes but I think the cost / risk (with
petrol, compared with water or gas) wouldn't be viable,

It is actually. Done with airports and ports all the time now.

Except your reply was premature,

Nope.

that aren't spread across the country

Corse it is.

or operated by 'Joe Public'.

Corse it is with boats.

And with that pipeline that just got hacked in the USA too.

See above.

See above.

especially retrospectively throughout a density populated
country like ours (and for direct usage by Joe Public).

Works fine with airports, ports etc.

See above.

See above.

I know they 'can' pump all sort of stuff fairly long distances

Across the entire country and entire regions in fact.

(Dad was on Shell Tankers for 12 years) but it's funny that after 100
years of the IC engine, they still don't (for Joe Public to access)?

Yes they do.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 21:11, Tim Streater wrote:

1) We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age.

2) We are in an interglacial and can expect to return to a period of
severe
glaciation.


I understand there are lots of pet theories that it's all to do with the
sun, etc. However, the downside with those theories

It isnt a theory, its a fact.

being wrong is horrendous.

Wrong. We survived the ice age fine.

On 19/05/2021 14:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 13:47, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just
plug it in at each rest break.

Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware shop
for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to Dover and
back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not to lose time
off work.

Also, "non-stop" Manchester to the south of France and Manchester to
Nottingham to Stuttgart.

And a number of others.

I predict a very high demand for new ICE and Hybrid vehicles in the
final years of production leading up to 2030/35 and the owners running
those cars for as many years as they can, also the prices of used
ICE/Hybrids after 2030/35 will rise due to higher demand.

You can lead a horse to water..............

On 20/05/2021 00:54, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience
unnecessarily. That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to
get to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

How can you plan for a sudden death and the funeral being the next day,
on the far side of Ireland?

In Ireland if someone dies in the night, people are typically notified
the next day and the funeral is the day after.

Typically? So it is optional for those arranging the funeral to consider.

I'm sure the same was true for the UK, but we've advanced to consider
the arrangements and time taken for relatives to attend the funeral.
Especially in a world where mourners might now be in different continents.

On 20/05/2021 11:59, Andrew wrote:

In any case, my wife refuses to pee in the bushes, so we'll have to go
somewhere with a more or less decent loo.


https://www.shewee.com/

It's strange that nobody has invented:-

https://www.HePoo.com/

On 20/05/2021 12:17, Rod Speed wrote:


"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 21:11, Tim Streater wrote:

1) We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age.

2) We are in an interglacial and can expect to return to a period of
severe
glaciation.


I understand there are lots of pet theories that it's all to do with
the sun, etc. However, the downside with those theories

It isnt a theory, its a fact.

being wrong is horrendous.

Wrong. We survived the ice age fine.

I thought there was an ice-age or catastrophe where our ancestors were
down to a few thousand, as indicated by mitochondrial DNA.

In article , T i m
wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2021 16:01:18 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , GB
wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a Jpetrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just
plug it in at each rest break.

Assuming that there is a charge pont clear.

I think when it get's to that level of uptake, *every* parking space will
have a charging point and the load based on the worst case typical
percentage of EV's to IC that would be parked there.

They would do that because that would encourage EV drivers to park there
and so use the other facilities (like restaurants and all the shopping /
entertainment that would then also be added).

Just in the same way there is usually a food place and newsagent at /
near a railway station.

Cheers, T i m

Westfield at Shepherds Bush has a large Tesla recharging ststion on the
lower floor only. Management shut the lower floor during lockdown ;-(

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 19/05/2021 15:40, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 19/05/2021 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/05/2021 13:52, Clive Arthur wrote:

snipped


Have a separate fast charge connector under the vehicle, accessed
automatically.

and covered in mud...and subject to spray....I dont think so

there is a reason why fuel fillers are where they are

Indeed you'd need to cover the connector.Â* Probably with something
cheap, disposable and biodegradable.Â* A turnip, for example.

And as for those trailer connectors, they'll never work.

1. They are not 'under' the car
2. Often they *dont* work
3. I have yet to see one rated for 100A and 10KV

So go **** yourself.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 19/05/2021 15:42, NY wrote:
"Theo" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done the
paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time disconnected and
we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as seen on the day)
and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a
house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

Perhaps the other weekends in your life don't involve nonstop driving
1000+
miles and are not as action-packed?

This is the problem with electric cars - one car cannot do all the jobs
and you may need either to own a second (petrol/diesel) car or else rent
one - both of which are all extra cost.

We, the public, are being asked to change the way we live and to accept
a sub-standard product. When EVs are at least as good as petrol/diesel,
in terms of range and refuelling, *then* is the time to phase out
petrol/diesel. But the date of petrol/diesel car withdrawal (ie no
longer sold any more) has already been announced. That may be to spur
manufacturers to get their acts together, though I'm sure they are all
working flat out as it is to find solutions. But if the date comes and
we still have EVs with a maximum range of 200 miles and a recharge time
(to restore the full range) of over an hour (and maybe considerably
longer) then it will be a huge step backwards in the name of "progress".


And will petrol/diesel *rental* cars always be available? Will there
come a time when the cars, bought just before sales are stopped, have
worn out. What then? Will we have no choice but to stop every 200 miles
for a multi-hour break? The problem comes when the place where you take
a planned break is not the same place as the one where you can charge
the car.

If we *had* to go all electric, the answer is to build railway lines
down the fast lane of motorways,. and have high speed car and truck
transporters run on them...and charge the cars as you go.

But in the end if the population has any sense at all it will reject the
wet dreams of the greens and understand that sometimes the price of
Purity is just too high.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 19/05/2021 16:13, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 15:42, NY wrote:
Will we have no choice but to stop every 200 miles for a multi-hour
break?

If the alternative is climate catastrophe,

I can assure you the alternative is a lot of criminals not making so
much money

Coldest April/May in a 100 years?



--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On 20/05/2021 11:57, Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
But we can get to Ireland with *existing* vehicles. The problem is that
we are being pushed to replacement vehicles that cannot make the same
journey. We simply want to maintain the same ability that we have now
and not go backwards.

So that sounds like a business opportunity: quick access to ICE cars for EV
owners who need them on an occasional basis.


Steve has a rather unusual usage need, but I also once needed to drop
everything and travel 150 miles for a funeral.

There are multiple ways of meeting that need, and plug in hybrid is just
one of those.

Very rapid charging.
Swappable batteries.
Hire cars.
Portable generator sets.

Those are all potentially viable options. The fact that they are not
currently available mostly reflects that there isn't a very large EV
pool of customers yet.

On 20/05/2021 12:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:13, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 15:42, NY wrote:
Will we have no choice but to stop every 200 miles for a multi-hour
break?

If the alternative is climate catastrophe,

I can assure you the alternative is a lot of criminals not making so
much money

Coldest April/May in a 100 years?


You can't seriously be suggesting that the local climate over a month or
two is proof of anything?

On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


But that is not te true case




Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.

But that is not te true case


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

That is because you are starting from two utterly false premises.
1. That climate change is supported by a large number of *scientists*
2. that the current measures to combat it are effective and will result
in *just a little inconvenience.

First of all the number of scientists who are both involved in real
climate science, and who believe it is as dangerous as the Great
Thunderbox says it is, is zero.

There are half dozen or so fighting to save their careers who still
claim that it is, but they don't *believe* it, either. They are caught
in a lie that they cannot retract.

Climate change has completely separated itself from science. All the
science points to the fact that the models are not producing anything
like the correct results, and the assumptions on which the models are
based are therefore at best incomplete, or at worst downright wrong.

the second assumption, that it merely is going to cost us a few pence on
our electricity bills or a few extra stops on the way to Bangor, is
ultimately horse**** as well.

Every reasonable study that has addressed the cost of going zero carbon
has found that its a trillion dollar exercise that will achieve almost
nothing.

The cost of adjusting to what little climate change we have had or will
likely have, is far far less.

In fact climate change may itself save money as there are signs that a
slightly warmer high CO2 atmosphere is very beneficial to crops.

The real danger of climate change is an ill considered rush that will in
any case fail to meet a challenge that doesn't exist except in peoples
minds.

However having said all that, the challenges of adapting to a low fossil
fuel civilisation are real, and do need to be met. Not because
ClimateChange, but cecause EROEI. Fossil fuels are not in the limit
sustainable. Nor is 'Renewable Energy'.

Which leaves us with really just one viable primary energy source.
Nuclear power.

The challenge is how to turn that into a mobile off grid power source.

My best guess is not batteries, its synthetic hydrocarbon fuel


--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On 20/05/2021 00:30, Fredxx wrote:

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.


So you want to throw us back to the 19th century?

Bill

On 20/05/2021 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:54, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience
unnecessarily. That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to
get to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

How can you plan for a sudden death and the funeral being the next
day, on the far side of Ireland?

In Ireland if someone dies in the night, people are typically notified
the next day and the funeral is the day after.

Typically? So it is optional for those arranging the funeral to consider.

It is very unusual to be longer - indeed whereas in the UK funeral
notices might appear in the paper, Ireland broadcasts them on the radio.
Why should people be expected change things to accommodate inferior
technology?

I'm sure the same was true for the UK, but we've advanced to consider
the arrangements and time taken for relatives to attend the funeral.
Especially in a world where mourners might now be in different continents.

What of other religions? Jews and Muslims have rules for fast burials.

On 19/05/2021 18:55, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 17:09, Robin wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

Do you think the "end of the world" hyperbole helps? I am sorry to say
that to me it just signals someone who (consciously or not) has bought
into the hyperbolic non-science. And probably also thinks that eating
meat should be banned from 2025.


I couldn't resist the wording. Sorry about that!Â* Runaway climate change
would make life on earth extremely difficult, and that is one of the
possible outcomes. Clearly, the earth would continue to exist.

It is not one of te possible outcomes. If the earths climate was that
unstable with respect to CO2 it would have gone runaway many times in
the past.

My BIL who is a Phd geologist, syas that is his one reason for utterly
rejecting climate change by CO2. 'If their premises were true, we
wouldn't have evolved be here now to have them'

The whole climate catastrophe scenario depends not on science. and CO2,
but on a proposition that there is positive feedback in the climate.

They needed to assume this in order that the moderate increase in CO2
would give the quite rapid rise in global temperatures for the
1980--2000 period *in the absence of any other causes*

Since then the climate has stubbornly refused to get significantly
warmer at all. And indeed this winter has seen it actually cool, overall.

It is patently clear that whilst for sure climate changes, something
other than CO2 is the dominant reason.

So climate change becomes something we cannot stop, because we simply do
not know what is causing it. That much the *real* science now tells us.

The point, though, is that people are complaining that they may not be
able to use their favourite picnic spot on long journeys, whilst
ignoring the idea that people in arid areas may effectively be without
water. Those too losses don't seem comparable to me.

Well both of them are just figments of your imagination, so I should
have a glass of hot milk and an aspirin and dream of fluffy bunnies





--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 20/05/2021 11:54, Andrew wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

But unless you are of a certain religion, there is plenty of
warning about when the funeral will take place, allowing a bit
of forward route planning.

It is not just a "certain religion". Christians burials in Ireland as
mainly next day or the day after at latest.

On 20/05/2021 12:07, Andrew wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:17, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:04, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done
the paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time
disconnected and we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as
seen on the day) and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a
house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a
petrol or
diesel car.

I'd considered that as a possibility when thinking about buying an
electric
car.Â* Ah - I'm 81 and hiring a car if you're over 80 it is, apparently,
very difficult.

Not much help anyway when you find an answerphone message at 5pm
saying that your wife's uncle has died and his funeral is on the far
side of Ireland, at 11am either. Too late to get a flight organised,
get the kids to my parents and and get through airport security that
night. The earliest flight in the morning arriving at Belfast or
Dublin too late to pick up a hire car and get to the funeral. Too late
to organise and pick up a hire car in the UK, book the ferry with the
right registration details and get going. The only choice to drive and
use the ferry in our own car - with no time to charge before leaving,
no time to charge en-route and no time to charge (unless the hotel
hosting the meal had chargers) before heading home again.

And we have had multiple occasions of short notice funerals due a
large extended family (M-I-L one of 8 siblings, F-I-L one of 13).

Relocate back to Ireland and 'work from home' ?

I am not from Ireland and neither is my wife, but her family were and are.

On 19/05/2021 21:11, Tim Streater wrote:
1) We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age.

2) We are in an interglacial and can expect to return to a period of severe
glaciation.

+1.

Neither of which were associated with modulation of CO2 levels.

There are far more serious forces at work that a minor variation in a
trace gas.

Unfortunately none of those more serious forces can be used to justify
ripping off the public. more taxes, more state control and more power
transferred to a centralised bureaucracy.


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/05/2021 11:54, Andrew wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

But unless you are of a certain religion, there is plenty of
warning about when the funeral will take place, allowing a bit
of forward route planning.

It is not just a "certain religion". Christians burials in Ireland as
mainly next day or the day after at latest.

How many short-notice far-away funerals do you go to a year, out of interest?

Should we be concerned?

Theo

On 20/05/2021 10:56, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 21:11, Tim Streater wrote:

1) We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age.

2) We are in an interglacial and can expect to return to a period of
severe
glaciation.


I understand there are lots of pet theories that it's all to do with the
sun, etc. However, the downside with those theories being wrong is
horrendous.

Dear GB.

The Problem of Induction says that the world may be explained by any
number of more or less wild hypotheses, but these fall into,
ultimately. as Karl Popper pointed out, three categories.

1. Those that are demonstrably wrong. We call these junk science or bunk
or nonsense.
2. Those that potentially could be demonstrated to be wrong, but
*haven't been yet*. We call these 'science'.
3. Those that cannot be even theoretically demonstrated to be wrong. Or
indeed right. These we call 'metaphysical'. They are in the end acts of
faith, or assumptions we make that are so basic that they form the
foundations of how we think.

Global warming started off briefly in category 2. It was a hypothesis
that seemed to make sense, and hadn't been disproved yet. By around
2015, it had been disproved. It was junk science. bunk.

But then massive amounts of money were poured in to moving it from junk
science to metaphysics. An unquestioned and indeed unquestionable Act of
Faith.

Now, it doesn't matter what happens to the climate, "CO2 is causing it".

In the same way that a Muslim mutters 'in'shallah' (it is Gods will)
today's liberal climatard mutters 'its Co2 what dunnit' (Or Brexit, or
the Russians or the tory toffs or White Men or whatever...)

Not because of any demonstrable causal connection, but because this is
the simple bigotry that has been instilled as as an every day exercise
in the abuse of metaphysics.

Or as you know it, marketing and propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that you are scared. You are meant to be
scared. You have deliberately been scared out of your tiny mind.

The world has undergone far far more horrendous climate change over its
unrecorded history than ANYTHING being predicted by even the most
egregious climatard.

All without man made CO2.

It is clear that irrespective of theories, we are the result of and
subject to, having found an ecological niche in a broad range of
climates, and have survived so far. For only a few thousand years.
Dinosaurs were around for millions, before being wiped out by an asteroid

Shouldn't you be voting for orbital space guns to deflect asteroids?

There are risks from asteroids. There are risk from natural climate change.

The one thing there is *no* risk from, is man made climate change due to CO2

All the evidence *utterly refutes* any correlation of *significance*
between rising CO2 and rising temperatures. There may be a little, but
it's dwarfed by other effects like multidecadal fluctuations in ocean
current and temperature, the sun's output, and so on.

Climate change happens, its always happened,but it's *nothing to do*
with CO2. Indeed all the palaeological evidence is that rising
temperatures cause rising CO2 levels after a couple of hundred years due
to outgassing from warmer oceans.

Climate change is not an inconvenient truth. As any propagandist knows,
you always tell the exact opposite of the truth

Climate change is a politically most convenient lie.

It justifies transfer of power and money from the citizen into the
pockets of crony capitalists, and politicians and justifies more and
more centralised bureaucracy.

The money so garnered is partly spent on buying journalists and
scientists with grants, to further reinforce the credibility of the lie,
which has now probably - after religion - become the biggest lie ever told.



--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 20/05/2021 11:21, GB wrote:
Clearly, if semi-arid regions become arid, that will lead to major
difficulties for a significant chunk of the world's population.


All the evidence is that semi arid regions are now becoming greener
under the impact of rising CO2



The point, though, is that people are complaining that they may not
be able to use their favourite picnic spot on long journeys, whilst
ignoring the idea that people in arid areas may effectively be
without water. Those too losses don't seem comparable to me.


Perhaps they are just using the loss of ability to travel as an
example of the way the scale and cost of the changes required to
deliver "net zero" with current technology continue to be kept from
the vast majority of the public.


"Continue to be kept from ..." - Are you suggesting a conspiracy, or
simply that many people haven't given this much though?

Of course its a conspiracy. Not formal, just tacit. Too many people are
making too much money and winning too many elections to want to
challenge the orthodoxy of 'climate change'

Cui bono?

It easier to ask who doesn't benefit, and there, there is only one answer
Joe public.
EVERYONE ELSE benefits by not challenging or promoting the lie
The media benefits from new scares stores every week
'green' business benefits
Government benefits
The third world benefits
A hundred activist organizations benefit.
thousands of charities have jumped on it to magnify their
importance.They benefit
millions of scientists get grants so long as they accept as an article
of faith that climate change is real man made and really happening. They
benefit.

Only you and I who see perfectly good cars being taxed out of existence,
whilst or electricity bills treble, are paying for this ****



--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 20/05/2021 13:08, GB wrote:

Coldest April/May in a 100 years?


You can't seriously be suggesting that the local climate over a month or
two is proof of anything?

But the Global Warming Hypothesis doesn't rely on proof.

Bill

On 20/05/2021 12:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 12:17, Rod Speed wrote:

Wrong. We survived the ice age fine.

I thought there was an ice-age or catastrophe where our ancestors were
down to a few thousand, as indicated by mitochondrial DNA.

Yes but they didn't have gas boilers. We'd be fine.

Bill