On 20/05/2021 12:00, Robin wrote:
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?


I mean its bollox. He might as well have said

'Clearly, if vast areas of permafrost tundra become grass covered
steppes, there is room for far more people to live there'

This is illogical extrapolation of low probability events to justify actions

If we don't address CO2 emissions we *may* end up *slightly* worse off.

But if we *do* address CO2 emissions to net zero we *WILL* end up
*MASSIVELY* worse off.

And get taken over by the Asians, who don't give a **** about climate
change anyway and need a place to put their populations

If the last 18 months have shown us anything, its that Brexit and
Climate change are the least of our worries.

--
€œThose who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.€�

€• Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles Ã* M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie Ã* Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 19/05/2021 17:50, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 May 2021 at 16:57:26 BST, 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.

A little inconvenience? Are ye mad? We'd be spending trillions to completely
change our infrastructure and lifestyle and you call that "a little
inconvenience".

Well the changeover from horses and choochoos to cars took about 50
years and was equally massive.

As has been the impact of the internet in what - 30 years - its ****ed
the high street completely.
I think we will change, and we will have to change, but not along the
lines dictated by stupid GreenThink and ArtStudents.

I would far rather let the market decide than being forced down a path
on ideological grounds.

The fact that electric cars in real terms cost more than fuel cars is
strong evidence that they are overall using more energy. Forcing
scrappage of cars with useful working lives still in them is also an
indication of more energy being used than is necessary.

If all this GreenCrap„¢ was such a good idea why is it necessary to
enforce its use by laws and by subsidy?

If there were a level playing field in energy, we would be 100% nuclear
powered grid wise, and the cost of nuclear electricity versus fuel would
already have ensured that most people used electric heating. As happened
in France.

But a lot of people make a lot of money out of lobbying governments and
setting up or usurping control of 'green' groups to ensure that the
playing field resembles a ski slope.

Globally, energy is the biggest single market sector in the world.
Civilisation depends on it.

Did you really expect anyone to tell you the truth about it?

Bless!


--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

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!
its not a little inconvenience when you die from lack of power in a dead
hospital in winter


--
€œIt is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.€�

ۥ Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

On 20/05/2021 11:48, Scion wrote:
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.

Fortunately neither are true, but what is more true is that the era of
cheap fossil fuel is drawing to an end.

We have let the ArtStudents„¢ design the future and its been an
unmitigated and massively expensive mistake

Isn't it about time to pass it over to Engineers, who at least can Do
Sums ....


--
€œIt is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.€�

ۥ Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

On 20/05/2021 13:03, GB wrote:

snip

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.Â* The fact that they are not
currently available mostly reflects that there isn't a very large EV
pool of customers yet.

+ in-journey recharging.
+ motorail

--
Cheers
Clive

On 19/05/2021 16:06, charles wrote:
In article , 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 , 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

How many vehicles? Where is tehextra enery going to come from?

All of them. From the nuclear reactor powering the ferry, of course. All
included in the price.

And while the ferry is docked, its powering all the charge points in the
car queues.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 19/05/2021 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

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.

Sold as a remedy for head lice. (Petrol was a waste product in the
production of kerosene from crude oil.)

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 20 May 2021 21:13:50 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

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

Across the entire country and entire regions in fact.

Quite. Interested to know many long distance *petrol* pipelines are in
action around the world though.

(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.

Not that I was talking about this but are you saying it's the norm for
petrol stations to be 'plumbed in' (other than those that are quite
near terminals / refineries)?

I was actually saying that they haven't plumbed petrol to people homes
(in the same way they have with water and gas (even then not in all
locations) and after all these years?

Cheers, T i m

On 20/05/2021 12:11, Andrew wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

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.

What was it sold for? To stick in your earhole?

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 20 May 2021 12:39:38 +0100, charles
wrote:

snip

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).

snip

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

Quite! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 20/05/2021 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/05/2021 11:48, Scion wrote:
Sure, that's what we want. But*if*Â* climate doom is true and*if*
stopping
fossil fuel was the answer then need would replace want.

Fortunately neither are true, but what is more true is that the era of
cheap fossil fuel is drawing to an end.

We have let the ArtStudents„¢ design the future and its been an
unmitigated and massively expensive mistake

Isn't it about time to pass it over to Engineers, who at least can Do
Sums ....

But who can't organise a ****-up in a brewery, or myopic to alternative
views.

Accountants can do sums too.

On Thu, 20 May 2021 21:05:03 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Thu, 20 May 2021 21:17:04 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Thu, 20 May 2021 20:31:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 20 May 2021 21:13:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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. We found out when we got
home from work and found the message shortly after 5pm - we had to get
from Manchester to Sligo for the funeral at 11am. Too late to drop the
kids off and get a flight that night, first flight in the morning
arriving too late for us to get a hire car and cross Ireland. The only
option to drive and use the ferry. With time to drop the kids, get
suitable clothes together, book ferries, etc., we arrived at the church
with 15 minutes to spare.

Having a funeral quickly after death dates from the days before
refrigeration and also people travelling long distances to funerals. When
they were a quick local affair.

No real reason to have them so soon today.

--
*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
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.

By the time we are forced to EVs, they will be available with the same
range as any current diesel car. In other words, as far as any normal
person would wish to travel in one day by car.

--
*I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Robin wrote:
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)?

It may not matter with so many now being under water after the ice caps
melt. ;-)

--
*The modem is the message *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
williamwright wrote:
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?

Some may just be planning for the 22nd century. But not many here.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On 20/05/2021 12:11, Andrew wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

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.

What was it sold for? To stick in your earhole?

When I were a lad, olive oil was kept in the medicine cabinet. ;-)

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/05/2021 11:48, Scion wrote:
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.

Fortunately neither are true, but what is more true is that the era of
cheap fossil fuel is drawing to an end.

We have let the ArtStudents� design the future and its been an
unmitigated and massively expensive mistake

Isn't it about time to pass it over to Engineers, who at least can Do
Sums ....

But who can't organise a ****-up in a brewery, or myopic to alternative
views.

Quite. It is, after all, engineers who produced the myriad of different
household power connectors across the world. And phone chargers, etc.

In an attempt to protect their own interests.

Protecting one's own interests will not solve climate change.

Accountants can do sums too.

--
*What do you call a dinosaur with an extensive vocabulary? A thesaurus.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/05/2021 23:04, bilou wrote:
Le 19/05/2021 Ã* 10:53, NY a écritÂ*:
If (and this is a big assumption) an electric car needs about the same
amount of energy to travel the same distance, then that's 60*38 = 2280
MJ (2.28 GJ). And that energy needs to be supplied in the stated 5
minutes (300 seconds).

OK, so the power needed is 2280/300 = 7.6 MW.
+1
And if you take into account the power loss in the charging cable and
the internal resistance of the battery you get to the conclusion that
the topic is stupid.

No,. if you were an engineer and no an ArtStudent you would do the
research and the calculations and see that it was challenging, but not
impossible at all, and the stupid person was in fact you.

May be with a 100 KV battery but good luck to build a 100 KV motor :-)

Oh dear. semiconductors that function up to certainly 25kV as used on
overhead electric trains that develop up to 50MW...are patently myth!


The sweet spot is probably around 5KV for charge CABLES. The battery can
be whatever you want. Semiconductor inverters and regulators will feed
the appropriate 4.2v to each and every cell.

As far as motors go, again the choice is almost limitless. lots of turns
of thin wire or a few turns of thick wire - the motor doesn't care. A
few turns of thick wire are good but that means you need very big
control transistors. In reality Id guess at something between 100V and a KV.

In short the constraints are about optimising the following issues

1. Charge cables. Too low a voltage means a massively heavy cable. Too
high a voltage makes safety a concern and also the ability to down
convert using readily available cheap semiconductor inverters. If you
limit current to 100A, then you need a KV for each MW of charge power.
2KV is within reach of plenty of semiconductors. That's a 2MW charge
lead. 2MW will charge a 100kWh battery in 3 minutes. All other things
being equal

2. Motor voltage. You probably again want to go high here, but without
getting into super dangerous territory, mainly so that connecting wires
and switching transistors have to handle less current. For a single
motor/conventional transmission a 300bhp motor (225Kw) running at say
500V and 450A is ok and in fact things get easier with 4 wheel motors.
Again you might want to push up towards the 2kv limit of cheap
semiconductors to get peak currents down, but, realistically you need to
look at the overall usage on the motor. It wont do 300bhp forever one
suspects, or need to.

3. Battery voltage - well you make that the same as the motor voltage
for simplicity. 250 cells in series nets you about a kV. It is really no
big issue.

What it boils down to is this. Can you make a cable and a connector that
will deliver a MW that is no worse to handle than a petrol pump hose
and nozzle?

If we go to 5KV, we need 200A. IEEE tables suggests that needs around 70
sq mm of cable to not overheat, which means that two such, and an earth,
would certainly fit inside something no bigger than a petrol hose.
lets say the overall cross sections end up around 200 sq mm and the
'hose' is two meters long - that's 0.4 cu dm of copper weighing about
4.5kg.

Not something you would want to lift unaided, but probably not much
worse than a fuel nozzle on a big truck diesel pump

And in fact aluminium has a better current to weight ratio, so would
probably be used instead.

Make the thing out of hundreds of small strands, and its flexible,
cover it in silicone rubber for primary insulation, and a wire spiral
and rubber overcoat - earthed for extra protection - and you have a MW
charge lead.

The plug and socket would be an interesting challenge - able to be
connected in less than a second by a complete numpty with no possibility
of wrong insertion, inherently lockable and capable of doing 200A.,..and
insulated to 5Kv.


I think id put some simple robotics in the charger side that rotated
things to alignment, wiped all the contacts carefully before clamping
them hard and then monitored the temperature in the whole shebang, and
couldn't be pulled loose without shutting off power first

I don't see any serious problems in any of this. Its not radical
technology, its just coming up with a standard
plug/socket/voltage/current that is *good enough*.

And then having the cars own electronics down convert that to suit the
battery in use.



--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 19/05/2021 15:50, NY wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 02:26, williamwright wrote:

Says the Times. How are the charging stations going to cope with that?

A supercapacitor might be OK but I can't see diffusion limited
chemical reactions tolerating superfast charging without a much
shortened life.

Exactly. The laws of physics/chemistry (governing charging rates) are
more immutable than the law of the land (you will not buy a
petrol/diesel car after a certain date).


Sadly its already been achieved. Sub 5 minute charging has been done in
the lab,. and sub 3 minute discharging is reality on every single flight
battery I have bought this year

This is not pie in the sky, It's achievable - albeit at a cost and
weight and lifetime penalty.



--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

On 20/05/2021 04:25, Joey wrote:
Because its too much farting around plugging all the cars in.

as much trouble as for example putting a petrol nozzle in a fuel tank?
or chaining down a lorry on a rogh trip?

#Idiot

I'd say it was the perfect place for it

More fool you. It isnt.

It would be.

cars are going nowhere for an hour, all parked in fixed positions near
to walls and ceilings and so on. Its up to the drivers to plug them in
if they want a charge.


Given that they have an hour to charge, and the ferry is about 1000
cars, the worst case that they all limp in with dead flat batteries
means they will need on 100Kwh batteries, about 100kw apiece. so in
total they will need 100MW of charge power. It more likely to be less
than half that. So 50MW

Obviously you wont get that from a 4000 bhp marine diesel setup, but te
answer is to stick a reactor in them. Rolls Royce submarine reactors are
of that sort of power output - 50Mw ore thereabouts its been estimated
(classified)

I mean if we are going net zero ferries wont have DIESELS will they?

Although for cross channel they might have batteries!!

--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

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

Well that is the line taken by climate alarmists.

Of course *I* wouldn't base my estimates of global climate change on a
glacier here, or a wildfire or a polar bear there.

I'd base it on the *total lack of significant warming* in the last 23
years.



--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 20/05/2021 14:38, Max Demian wrote:

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

Sold as a remedy for head lice. (Petrol was a waste product in the
production of kerosene from crude oil.)


"Put that fag out while I do your lice Johnny. You know what happened to
your sister."
"But Mam, you said she'd be in heaven now, and isn't that better than
living in this **** tip?"

Bill

On 20/05/2021 14:57, Fredxx wrote:


Accountants can do sums too.

Yes but they start with incorrect data.

Bill

On 20/05/2021 15:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

By the time we are forced to EVs, they will be available with the same
range as any current diesel car. In other words, as far as any normal
person would wish to travel in one day by car.


****ing hell! Mystic Meg speaks!

Bill

On 20/05/2021 15:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Having a funeral quickly after death dates from the days before
refrigeration and also people travelling long distances to funerals. When
they were a quick local affair.

No real reason to have them so soon today.


So the Religion of Global Warming should destroy the ancient traditions
of all other religions?

Bill

On 20/05/2021 15:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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

Some may just be planning for the 22nd century. But not many here.


A typical Dave non sequitur.

Bill

On 20/05/2021 12:21, GB wrote:
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/

Oh yes they have:
https://www.peebol.com/

On 19/05/2021 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Batteries are already equipped with fan cooling.

If you want to think about 'three 3 kw electric fires' instead think
about a 300bhp car that runs at 25% efficiency - so 900bhp of HEAT is
being dumped by that cars radiators. Around 675 kW. It's no big deal to
dump 9kw. And extra fans could be built into the charge points

If you want a green solution you don't dump the excess heat into the
environment? It could result in more global warming!

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 20/05/2021 17:11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/05/2021 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Batteries are already equipped with fan cooling.

If you want to think about 'three 3 kw electric fires' instead think
about a 300bhp car that runs at 25% efficiency - so 900bhp of HEAT is
being dumped by that cars radiators. Around 675 kW. It's no big deal
to dump 9kw. And extra fans could be built into the charge points

If you want a green solution you don't dump the excess heat into the
environment? It could result in more global warming!

Nothing about greenwash makes sense anyway

Ok you put the cars into insulated housings and use the hot airr to heat
the restaurant above...

--
€œPuritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.€�

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/05/2021 11:48, Scion wrote:
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.

Fortunately neither are true, but what is more true is that the era of
cheap fossil fuel is drawing to an end.

We have let the ArtStudents� design the future and its been an
unmitigated and massively expensive mistake

Isn't it about time to pass it over to Engineers, who at least can Do
Sums ....

But who can't organise a ****-up in a brewery, or myopic to alternative
views.

Engineeers can certainly arrange such things - I've been on 2 brewery trips
organised by Engineers.

Accountants can do sums too.

but the answer they give you can vary.

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

On 20/05/2021 17:41, charles wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/05/2021 11:48, Scion wrote:
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.

Fortunately neither are true, but what is more true is that the era of
cheap fossil fuel is drawing to an end.

We have let the ArtStudents� design the future and its been an
unmitigated and massively expensive mistake

Isn't it about time to pass it over to Engineers, who at least can Do
Sums ....

But who can't organise a ****-up in a brewery, or myopic to alternative
views.

Engineeers can certainly arrange such things - I've been on 2 brewery trips
organised by Engineers.

They do say exceptions prove the rule.

Accountants can do sums too.

but the answer they give you can vary.

Depending on methodology. I suppose there might be some who suck air
through their teeth and without delving into detail and give an
approximate answer. Say +/- 10%.

On 20/05/2021 18:12, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 May 2021 at 00:30:07 BST, 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.

Actually, or course, we didn't cope, especially before phones. You might get a
letter a week later saying your 8th cousin had pegged it a week previously in
the west of Ireland.

But then, people took that for granted. It was how it was. Today, you tell
people they will have to cope, and their response will be short, pithy, and
Anglo-Saxon.

Telegrams were a common method of fast communication before telephones
were widespread in homes.

In article ,
williamwright wrote:
By the time we are forced to EVs, they will be available with the same
range as any current diesel car. In other words, as far as any normal
person would wish to travel in one day by car.


****ing hell! Mystic Meg speaks!

Have you not noticed the increase in range in the short time EVs have been
around? And think it impossible it will get even better?

--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
williamwright wrote:
On 20/05/2021 15:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Having a funeral quickly after death dates from the days before
refrigeration and also people travelling long distances to funerals. When
they were a quick local affair.

No real reason to have them so soon today.


So the Religion of Global Warming should destroy the ancient traditions
of all other religions?

I'm very sure you think religion will save the planet Bill. And you've got
plenty company.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Steve Walker
writes
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.

I can't help feeling that we're sort-of going back to the days of
stagecoaches, only these days the frequent stops (to change the horses)
will not need to be quite as frequent, but will take longer.
--
Ian

In message , Steve Walker
writes
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.

Some filling stations imposed ridiculously low limits. [With one I used
to go to it was 50p max/min.] The predictable result was long queues of
cars topping up as frequently as they could, even though many would have
had tanks that were already nearly full, and they didn't need any
petrol. A far better policy would have been (say) 5 gallons minimum,
with a payment still for 5 gallons if you took less.
--
Ian