On 20/05/2021 21:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
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:

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

wiki says 1973.
Â*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.

They issued the coupons printed for Suez. And they were never required.
Motorcyclists complained that they were unsuitable for the more
efficient machines of the 70s. When you sold the vehicle, you passed
them on to the new owner.

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.


Some had maximum limits. Some had minimum limits (to stop people topping
up). Some queued for hours and found their tanks were already full.

--
Max Demian

On 20/05/2021 18:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 May 2021 at 18:15:50 BST, Jack Harry Teesdale
wrote:

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.

What, in 1830? Gosh, who knew!

1830 was not mentioned in the post i replied to. Just ' before phones'.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
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.

That was the Toba volcano, not the ice age and it was 10K-30K individuals.

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

The number doesn't matter. The pipelines are mostly crude or gas
for other reasons, like the number of different pipelines needed.

(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)?

Nope, just in some situations like airports and ports.

It's a lot cheaper to use tankers in other situations.

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?

There isnt any point in that because the petrol use is so much lower.

And gas did in fact transition from tankers to pipelines to homes.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

Plenty choose to travel more than just one tank full in a diesel car.

On 20/05/2021 13:32, Theo wrote:
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?



Not so often. But they do happen, they are at short notice and without a
vehicle that can set off with no prior notice and do more than a tank's
range, without long refueling stops, we'd not have made it for some of them.

With the in-laws being one of 13 on one side and one of 8 on the other,
there are a *lot* of relatives!

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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?

You cant do that with all the cars parked on the car decks of the ferry,
stupid.

#Idiot

Your sig is sposed to be last with a line with just -- on it in front of it.

I'd say it was the perfect place for it

More fool you. It isnt.

It would be.

Nope, because of that problem with plugging them all in,
and the source of the power to charge them all by a useful
amount for the relatively short time crossing the channel.

Quite apart from the risk of one of the catching fire with
the entire ferry being wiped out by the subsequent fire.

cars are going nowhere for an hour,

Which is **** all time to do a decent charge
without ****ing the battery life in the process.

all parked in fixed positions near to walls and ceilings and so on.

Which makes it a hell of a lot of farting around plugging
them all in once they are all parked up on the car deck.

Its up to the drivers to plug them in if they want a charge.

And just how are they sposed to do that with the
cars which in in the massive great block of cars ?

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

But with that providing **** all charge in that hour.

Obviously you wont get that from a 4000 bhp marine diesel setup,

Funny that.

but te answer is to stick a reactor in them.

Pity about the cost of that. And all those retractable
cables at every car parking spot.

Rolls Royce submarine reactors are of that sort of power output - 50Mw ore
thereabouts its been estimated (classified)

Pity about the cost of those.

I mean if we are going net zero ferries

Taint gunna happen.

wont have DIESELS will they?

Corse they will due to cost alone.

Although for cross channel they might have batteries!!

Pigs might fly too.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

There is nothing to solve with climate change.

The change from hunting and gathering to
agriculture would have produced some climate
change and that worked out fine anyway.

"Jack Harry Teesdale" wrote in message
...
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.

But no way to get there quick enough.

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
news
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)

Not just stage coaches either ridden horses on long journeys too.

will not need to be quite as frequent, but will take longer.

On 20/05/2021 18:15, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
Telegrams were a common method of fast communication before telephones
were widespread in homes.
IF you could afford them.

At a time when a letter was a couple of pence a telegram was several
shillings


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 20/05/2021 18:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 May 2021 at 18:15:50 BST, Jack Harry Teesdale
wrote:

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.

What, in 1830? Gosh, who knew!


"Electric telegraph systems were in use commercially from the late
1830s, and expanded considerably in scope after they were nationalised
under Post Office control from 1870. For the next century the service
continued to be offered, although subject to considerable decline as the
telephone system became more widespread."

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 2021-05-20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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?

Sure, it will get better, and will (have to be) good enough, as it's been
decided that this is the way we're going, and a lot of people are going to
make a lot of money from the tech. refresh, even if the end result makes
us worse off.

A big problem is that people see the enormous advances in computers (CPU speeds,
storage capacity, network speeds), and think the same advances will happen to
batteries. Unfortunately a 100% increase in battery capacity¹ would be a major
breakthrough, we need 1000% ^ n (cf. kilobit megabit gigabit network speeds).

¹(or charge time/life time/weight/cost, or whatever other metric is important)

--
Ian

"Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"

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


Accountants can do sums too.

Yes but they start with incorrect data.

Bill

Accountants know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing

--
Ian

"Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"

Ian

wrote:
On 2021-05-20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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?

Sure, it will get better, and will (have to be) good enough, as it's been
decided that this is the way we're going, and a lot of people are going to
make a lot of money from the tech. refresh, even if the end result makes
us worse off.

Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to acknowledge
the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even if
I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still be
under 5p per mile.

I do 99% of my charging at home. The only charging I do away from home is
on free chargers. This is of course a time limited perk in Scotland but
Id be a fool not to take advantage of it when convenient. ;-)

Zero emissions at the point of use. Maybe you dont worry about your local
air quality but if you lived in a congested city you health would almost
certainly benefit from better air quality.

Also, theyre *really* nice to drive.

Of course they have their downsides (as trumpeted here ad nauseum) and
definitely wont suit everyones usage needs but Ive done 10,000 miles of
stress free motoring since last September.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 21/05/2021 00:35, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/05/2021 13:32, Theo wrote:
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?



Not so often. But they do happen, they are at short notice and without a
vehicle that can set off with no prior notice and do more than a tank's
range, without long refueling stops, we'd not have made it for some of
them.

With the in-laws being one of 13 on one side and one of 8 on the other,
there are a *lot* of relatives!

Just to add - one year we attended 3 funerals there.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 08:57:37 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Fri, 21 May 2021 11:33:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
dennis@home to retarded trolling senile Rodent:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On Fri, 21 May 2021 09:27:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Plenty choose to travel more than just one tank full in a diesel car.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you subnormal sociopathic senile pest? LOL

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

On Fri, 21 May 2021 11:53:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

On Fri, 21 May 2021 11:46:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the auto-contradicting trolling senile asshole's latest troll****
unread

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On Fri, 21 May 2021 10:02:24 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

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

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Fri, 21 May 2021 09:23:28 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll**** unread

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from you boring them
to death."
MID:

On 20/05/2021 22:44, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 May 2021 at 22:15:03 BST, Jack Harry Teesdale
wrote:

On 20/05/2021 18:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 May 2021 at 18:15:50 BST, Jack Harry Teesdale
wrote:

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.

What, in 1830? Gosh, who knew!

1830 was not mentioned in the post i replied to. Just ' before phones'.

Christ on a bicycle! Consider my post suitably amended. D'ye think that
humanity sprang into existance just at the moment to take advantage of
telegrams but not phones? As any skoolboy could infer, I'm talking about the
long period of history *before* any speedy means of communications, during
which people just accepted that they'd likely miss all sorts of things
happening.

No the paragraph i replied to quotedActually, 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.

Telegrams were commonly used in these circumstances before widespread
ownership of home phones.

Don't try to weedle out of context.

On 21/05/2021 06:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/05/2021 18:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 May 2021 at 18:15:50 BST, Jack Harry Teesdale
wrote:

On 20/05/2021 18:12, Tim Streater wrote:
Â* On 20 May 2021 at 00:30:07 BST, Fredxx wrote:
Â* On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
Â*Â*Â* On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
Â*Â*Â* On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

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

Â*Â*Â* How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Â*Â*Â* Let's do a risk analysis:

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


Â*Â*Â* Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate
catastrophe are
Â*Â*Â* right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That
is the end
Â*Â*Â* of the world.
Â*Â*Â* It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally
unable to get
Â*Â*Â* to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

Â* The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.
Â* Actually, or course, we didn't cope, especially before phones. You
might get a
Â* letter a week later saying your 8th cousin had pegged it a week
previously in
Â* the west of Ireland.
Â* But then, people took that for granted. It was how it was. Today,
you tell
Â* people they will have to cope, and their response will be short,
pithy, and
Â* Anglo-Saxon.
Telegrams were a common method of fast communication before telephones
were widespread in homes.

What, in 1830? Gosh, who knew!


"Electric telegraph systems were in use commercially from the late
1830s, and expanded considerably in scope after they were nationalised
under Post Office control from 1870. For the next century the service
continued to be offered, although subject to considerable decline as the
telephone system became more widespread."

Spot on.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 09:23:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

The number doesn't matter.

It does when I as making the statement that in spite of petrol powered
vehicles being around for over 100 years, we still don't have petrol
feeds to our houses, like we do water, electricity (in the
contemporary use of the term 'piped', like 'piped music') and gas.

The pipelines are mostly crude or gas
for other reasons, like the number of different pipelines needed.

Of course, as I stated.

(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)?

Nope, just in some situations like airports and ports.

So you agree with me then, we don't generally pipe petrol to people
homes.

It's a lot cheaper to use tankers in other situations.

Of course.

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?

There isnt any point in that because the petrol use is so much lower.

Sure, I wasn't suggesting a reason why it hasn't been done yet, just
that it hasn't.

And gas did in fact transition from tankers to pipelines to homes.

It did indeed, just petrol didn't. Luckily, electricity now has. ;-)

Whilst out walking the dog yesterday I saw a car on charge outside
someone house from what looked like a garden hose reel fitted on the
wall behind the car, up on their drive. Then I looked at the badge and
realised it was a Tesla. I think that's the first full EV I've seen
being charged at home (my mate has a plug in hybrid thing [1] that
I've seen him charging at work (his business).

Cheers, T i m

[1] I think they both have second hand plug in hybrid cars now as they
both do quite a few miles and he's pretty canny re saving money.

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
Ian

wrote:
On 2021-05-20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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?

Sure, it will get better, and will (have to be) good enough, as it's been
decided that this is the way we're going, and a lot of people are going
to
make a lot of money from the tech. refresh, even if the end result makes
us worse off.

Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives
and refuse to acknowledge the positives of EVs.

There are none.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile.

Pity about the stupid price for the EV to get that and the
stupid cost of replacing the stupid battery so quickly.

Even if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say
15p/kWh, it would still be under 5p per mile.

Pity about the stupid price for the EV to get that and the
stupid cost of replacing the stupid battery so quickly.

I do 99% of my charging at home.

Pity about the stupid price for the EV to get that and the
stupid cost of replacing the stupid battery so quickly.

The only charging I do away from home is on free chargers.

Pity about the stupid price for the EV to get that and the
stupid cost of replacing the stupid battery so quickly.

This is of course a time limited perk in Scotland but
Id be a fool not to take advantage of it when convenient. ;-)

Pity about the stupid price for the EV to get that and the
stupid cost of replacing the stupid battery so quickly.

Zero emissions at the point of use.

Pity about the emissions with producing the electricity.

Maybe you dont worry about your local air quality

Yep, its fine.

but if you lived in a congested city you health would
almost certainly benefit from better air quality.

Bull****.

Also, theyre *really* nice to drive.

Pity about the stupid price for the EV to get that and the
stupid cost of replacing the stupid battery so quickly.

Of course they have their downsides (as trumpeted
here ad nauseum) and definitely wont suit everyones
usage needs but Ive done 10,000 miles of stress free
motoring since last September.

Thats lie with most with range anexity.

In article , T i m
wrote:

Whilst out walking the dog yesterday I saw a car on charge outside
someone house from what looked like a garden hose reel fitted on the wall
behind the car, up on their drive. Then I looked at the badge and
realised it was a Tesla. I think that's the first full EV I've seen being
charged at home (my mate has a plug in hybrid thing [1] that I've seen
him charging at work (his business).

My next door neighbour has a plug-in BMW - but he also has two IC vehicles.
He has enough money to afford 3 vehicles.

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

On Fri, 21 May 2021 09:26:02 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip

With the in-laws being one of 13 on one side and one of 8 on the other,
there are a *lot* of relatives!

Just to add - one year we attended 3 funerals there.

I am pleased to see they are trying to break yet another form of
conditioning when our families are often at their most vulnerable, the
funeral directors subtlety applying the pressure to get you to spend
more money / effort than the deceased themselves might have ever
wanted.

So they are now pushing a 'Simple' funeral where they just do the
(legally required / reasonable) basics.

I guess how you deal with all this is if you are religious or not or
how free thinking you are. AFAWAC, when you are gone you are gone and
any 'ceremony' around the 'mortal remains' (in a box in the ground or
in a jar) are a bit strange. We would be happy to be put out in black
backs and our only descendant, our daughter is perfectly respecting of
that decision / choice. ;-)

When my stepdaughter died (39) our daughter 'stepped up' and not only
nursed her though to the end (even staying in the hospice with her for
the last couple of weeks) but arranged the funeral that her half
sister had said she wanted, but at the lowest cost possible (because
that's also what she wanted). 'No flowers' etc as they are such a
waste and requested people donate money to charity instead.

And of course there is nothing stopping those left behind doing
whatever they want, individually or as a group or groups and from
nothing at all (just good memories etc) to a big wake.

I have seen the honest side where people have stated they 'don't
really want to go' but they are effectively blackmailed / coerced by
people forcing them do something they don't want, be it a party,
wedding [1] or funeral.

Re funerals, I think what is more important is what you did for / with
them when they were alive, as was the case with my Uncle that I know
wouldn't have wanted me to go to his funeral if I didn't want to (and
I didn't) because we also *never* pressurised him into doing anything
(even potentially 'fun' things), if he didn't want to. However, when
he was alive, he was there for me when I was a kid by getting me my
first woodworking kit and when I grew up, me helping him fix his car,
ripping out his fireplace or getting 8x4 sheets of 3/4" MDF for him to
make rocking horses out of (and they are heavy to lift on the roof of
the car on your own). ;-)

'They' arranged a wake for him back at his house and you saw the very
thing that I prefer to avoid and the vultures that had rarely ever
turned up or done anything with / for him arguing over his valuables
with all the 'he said I could have that' BS ... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[1] Because my current wife and I had both been married before and
done all the 'Till death we part ..' stuff ... and because we were
considering having a child and had looked into all the legal
implications of that with a Solicitor (who then told us to get married
as it was 'easier' (from a legal POV)), because we wanted to just do
the formal / legal stuff and no more we secretly arranged a visit to
the local Register Office during a lunchtime at work (we worked at the
same place) and *only* told the two witnesses to be there (not even
what they were going to be doing). ;-)

On hearing the news we had got married, my Mum and Dad invited out her
Mum and Dad for a meal so that they could celebrate the event and that
was cool (for them).

In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most likely
way, road pricing.

--
*WHOSE CRUEL IDEA WAS IT FOR THE WORD 'LISP' TO HAVE 'S' IN IT?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

Oh yes, EVs have a lot going for them. The lack of a gearbox with variable
(continuous or stepped) ratios means the driver is in direct control of road
speed/acceleration, rather than controlling engine speed which translates to
road speed via *different ratios* (*). It becomes easy to configure in
acceleration profiles so the driver just has to command the car "accelerate
smoothly from 0 to 60" and the motors will accelerate gradually to begin
with, then more, then ease off to zero acceleration once the target speed is
reached - which a driver of an IC car tries to do, with varying amounts of
skill. They are quieter and cleaner (at the car, rather than the power
station!).

Just a shame that with present-day technology, range is a lot less and
recharging time is dramatically more than for an IC car, requiring a
complete re-think about when/where you will recharge. And it is those
negatives which people will remember: I'm the sort of person for whom one
negative or unwanted change completely annihilates a plethora of advantages.


On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most likely
way, road pricing.

I remember during the Tony Blair or Gordon Brown Labour government of the
early 2000s, road-pricing was proposed. The principle was fine, but the way
they were proposing to implement it would have dramatically increased the
cost of a given long journey (ie cost with road pricing and fuel was a lot
more than flat-fee VED and fuel), and because they were proposing to apply
it only (or at a greater rate) for motorways, the law of unintended
consequences would have come into play: people who weren't in a tearing
hurry would have been encouraged to divert onto "cheaper" A and B roads
which couldn't then take all the extra traffic.



(*) ie the same accelerator movement produces different acceleration
depending on whether the gearbox is in second or third gear, which you
instinctively compensate for with a manual gearbox but end up fighting with
an automatic when you are not in control of which gear you are in. Or at
least I find it a problem: I never mastered the ability with an automatic to
accelerate briskly but not wheel-spinningly out of a roundabout, because
small pedal movement produces little power in high gear, whereas
fractionally more produces a bit more power but a surge in acceleration
because the gearbox has changed down and there is less mechanical load on
the engine - hitting the happy medium takes a *lot* of practice. In a manual
car I'd stay in the higher gear but apply more power, or else I'd already
have changed into the lower gear (and remain in it) before the acceleration.
Gearchanges are things that in a manual car I schedule to do before or after
but not during high acceleration, to keep things smooth.

On 21/05/2021 08:25, Ian wrote:
On 2021-05-20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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?

Sure, it will get better, and will (have to be) good enough, as it's been
decided that this is the way we're going, and a lot of people are going to
make a lot of money from the tech. refresh, even if the end result makes
us worse off.

A big problem is that people see the enormous advances in computers (CPU speeds,
storage capacity, network speeds), and think the same advances will happen to
batteries. Unfortunately a 100% increase in battery capacity¹ would be a major
breakthrough, we need 1000% ^ n (cf. kilobit megabit gigabit network speeds).

¹(or charge time/life time/weight/cost, or whatever other metric is important)

Any technology follows at first an exponential curve, and then an
asymptotic curve.

The first CPU I programmed clocked at 4Mhz. but te ones I have here are
all 1-4Ghz, despite the fact that the oldest one is 15 years old. The
technology is now mature and as 'good as it gets' and apart from adding
ciores it aint gonna get any better any tome soon

Lithium batteries ARE the breakthrough. In the periodic table it is at
the sweet spot of energy to weight. It is the *best* metal to use. And
currently its not good enough. We are on the asymptotic part of the
development curve, not the exponential. This is nearly as good as it
gets for electrochemical batteries. It is tantalisingly close to being
way more useful, but there's no cigar yet.

3 x improvement in energy density nets you something that would rival
fuel cars, and power cross channel ferries and even fly a passenger
plane a few hundred miles.

10 x energy density and you are in the same ball park as kerosene - and
you can fully replace fuel engines, except maybe in military
applications where uber fast refuelling and well off grid performance is
required

But unfortunately the theoretical limit is I think - I haven't checked
it - about 8 times, and that's just for electrolyte and so on - you
still need electrodes, and a case..

The flight batteries that I first bought in around 2006 are actually
*lighter* than the ones on sale today. But today's ones are tougher,
take more abuse and last longer.

The fact that electric cars have the range they do is not down to
battery improvements per se, its as much to do with using the battery
more efficiently with regenerative braking etc.

a 100kwh battery is in raw terms about 10 litres of fuel. Ok an electric
motor is about 3 times more efficient. but that's still only 30 litres
of fuel equivalent. So the 'mpg' equivalent is 6.6 gallons.

you simply would not sell a car with a 6.6 gallon tank that took an hour
to fill up

And in fact many batteries are 50kWh...

the jaguar I pace is around 84 usable kWh allegedly and does a shade
over 200 miles well that's 200 miles on 5.5 'gallons' - not that great.

But even that on a big heavy car is a tribute to regenerative braking
and aero...

....its almost impossible to break the 100mpg mark for anything remotely
car shaped, and even 70mpg is doing well. Car development is pretty much
mature - there aren't any more great gains to be had.
The fact is that when you drill down through the crap what is left is
that you need a certain amount of energy to push a car shaped car on
tyres on tarmac at a given speed, over a given distance, and that the
bigger battery you carry the heavier the car and the more energy it
takes....

We need 300kWh batteries. To do 600 miles. The I-pace battery is 600kg
In a vehicle that weighs 2200kg. so about one third the weight of the
car. If it were 300Kwh it would be around 2200kg so the car would weigh
nearly double, using twice the energy to get up to speed every time it
stopped. And you never get all the energy back through regen braking.
Only at a constant speed would it have three times the range.

The best (lightest) raw pack for flight I can find - no real case, no
protection circuits - would net out at 1.7 tonnes in sufficient quantity
to do 300Kwh. Jaguar are *already* nearly as good as it gets.

We are nearly as good as it gets - as it *can* get. And its not quite
good enough to make the electric car mainstream. In an urban/suburban
situation as a second car, plugged in every night, to do the school and
supermarket runs, its fantastic.

It's even ok for a one hour commute ..but not much more.

And the cost! And the materials! RC flight batteries are 50p per watt
hour give or take. 300kw would be about £150,000...just for a 600 mile
range battery - now I am sure that jaguar can buy cheaper than that but
still - expect £75000 worth of battery to be attached to your car.

Makes nicking the exhaust for platinum look like kindergarten stuff.

let's say that 2/3rd of the battery weight is lithium...a tonne say..the
spot price of the raw material is $13/kg so that $13,000 just for the
raw lithium.

lets also say that we end up with 20 million cars on the roads not to
mention the lorries..so 20 million tonnes of lithium to 'net zero' the UK.

That's one quarter of the total known reserves in the world...

and and 500 times the annual production of the worlds biggest producer -
Australia.JUST FOR THE UK

Seriously, it ain't gonna happen. Not with lithium batteries anyway.

Either we lose electric cars altogether, or we accept severe
restrictions on personal travel.

Unless someone comes up with some as yet undreamed of energy storage
technology, and it would have to be something in the quantum level of
things, because we have explored all the other bits of science well
enough to know there ain't no more answers there.

Its a shame. I would love a 300bhp 600 mile range 5 minute recharge
electric car for under 20 grand.

As it is I'll stick with my turbodiesel jag, which does all of that.


--
"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 21/05/2021 09:06, Tim+ wrote:
Of course they have their downsides (as trumpeted here ad nauseum) and
definitely wont suit everyones usage needs but Ive done 10,000 miles of
stress free motoring since last September.

I would love an electric car that had the range and performance and
capital cost of what I have now, but it doesn't exist.

If it did I would have bought it already.

Oddly enough, the reason I bought what I did, was to meet my personal
requirements for transport. Not to save the planet, or virtue signal my
Greenness (and wet-behind-the-ears-ness)

Its all very well to say 'hire a fuel car for a long trip' but that's a
hassle. And as one gets older, increasingly difficult.

The fact remains that whilst many of the ducks are in the row for
electric, not all are, and not all look like they ever *can* be, let
alone *will* be.

As with nuclear fusion, in principle its simple. Just create a small sun
in a bottle. Just develop a cheap lightweight high capacity electrical
energy store out of common materials.

If we had been able to do that - and batteries preceded internal
combustion engines - we would never have developed those IC engines in
the first place.

Everything about electric cars is right - except for the batteries. Too
expensive, too heavy, too material intensive, and made out of scarce
materials at that.

What we need is 'cold fission' so we can stick a lump of plutonium in a
car and make it produce 150,000 miles of electricity...

I would say that is more likely than BEVS, in future

I am saying all this because *most* of the reasons that people object to
BEVs are in fact perfectly soluble technically and at reasonable price.
There is no problem ultimately building enough nuclear plant and a big
enough grid to provide perfectly safe rapid charging points at every
motorway stop and supermarket. Nor the batteries capable of being
charged that fast, technically.

But there is probably not enough lithium in the world to do it. And
anyway lithium is simply too heavy, and its the lightest battery there is.


--
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

In article ,
NY wrote:
Oh yes, EVs have a lot going for them. The lack of a gearbox with
variable (continuous or stepped) ratios means the driver is in direct
control of road speed/acceleration, rather than controlling engine
speed which translates to road speed via *different ratios* (*). It
becomes easy to configure in acceleration profiles so the driver just
has to command the car "accelerate smoothly from 0 to 60" and the
motors will accelerate gradually to begin with, then more, then ease
off to zero acceleration once the target speed is reached - which a
driver of an IC car tries to do, with varying amounts of skill.

I'd suggest you try an IC engined car equipped with a decent modern auto.
;-)

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

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

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

presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather than just
a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.
--
Ian

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the more
you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs
separately.

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

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

On 21/05/2021 15:44, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

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

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

presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather than just
a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?



or a very small nuclear reactor



--
€œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most likely
way, road pricing.


I plan to. Its not an argument against EVs though. Indeed its an
argument to get one sooner rather than later.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 21/05/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile. Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the more
you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs
separately.

It will come; where smart meters will charge accordingly.