Millibund can't even get smart meters to work nationwide. I don't think a mini nuclear reactor in everyone's home is within his capability
Are EVs the way forward?
- Thread starter The Flying Scotsman
- Start date
- Status
There are some big moves to do with hydrogen right now in the UK.
The oil industry scientists in the late fifties produced a pretty good model of what burning fossil fuel would do to the climate.
The industry believed them enough (because they employed plenty of decent scientists between them back then) to quickly start spending billions sidelining and denying and covering up the facts. What we see now ties in quite nicely with their models. You can’t check it yourself.
There are far more accurate models now too. There is data to back them up.
The simple fact is it’s really easy to ignore and that’s what most people do. Mainly because they are scared of change.
So while some of us could provide links to papers, easy to read charts etc etc the folk pretending to ask won’t a) read them, b) believe them, c) give a flying… and d) how can you not manage this yourself as a grown adult? If you were interested you would look - that’s what adults do when then want to satisfy themselves they have a balance of views. Somehow I can’t see it happening.
Flat Earth theory was still a widely accepted consensus for three centuries after the scientific reality of the structure of the solar system had been demonstrated. In some sectors of society this is being wilfully repeated as regards anthropomorphic climate change.
The Ancient Greeks estimated the circumference of the Earth and where not too far out either.
@Lubrown, @Sasquatch - you need to re-read this section of the thread. The reality of climate change hasn't been questioned, so accusations of flat-Earthing are fallacious. 
To recap: a vid was posted of Kisin's speech in the Oxford Debate. This was then poo-pooed and the remainder of the discussion has attempted to ascertain whether there was a vaild rebuttal of the substance of the speech or whether a dislike of the messenger was the sum total of the objection.
To recap: a vid was posted of Kisin's speech in the Oxford Debate. This was then poo-pooed and the remainder of the discussion has attempted to ascertain whether there was a vaild rebuttal of the substance of the speech or whether a dislike of the messenger was the sum total of the objection.
Should'nt be surprised....their arguments lost once they start name calling.@Lubrown, @Sasquatch - you need to re-read this section of the thread. The reality of climate change hasn't been questioned, so accusations of flat-Earthing are fallacious.
To recap: a vid was posted of Kisin's speech in the Oxford Debate. This was then poo-pooed and the remainder of the discussion has attempted to ascertain whether there was a vaild rebuttal of the substance of the speech or whether a dislike of the messenger was the sum total of the objection.
That the climate is changing isn’t even being questioned. Is humanity responsible? Maybe, possibly, partially, even scientists can’t agree on that one. Given that the climate changes dramatically with or without human intervention is a historical fact. Can we do anything about it? Doubtful. These are the points raised in the video.
Despite the efforts of some countries, the climate is still changing. And will continue to do so, it’s a natural cycle. Rather than spending huge amounts of effort & resources trying to halt something that is unstoppable, A La Canute, we should be concentrating on adapting to the climatic future, instead of trying to shape it. Thinking that we can control nature is just a prime example of human arrogance & hubris. If any government was serious about reducing the human impact on the climate, they’d be proposing a reduction in the human population, but you never hear that, it’s all growth, growth, growth.
Despite the efforts of some countries, the climate is still changing. And will continue to do so, it’s a natural cycle. Rather than spending huge amounts of effort & resources trying to halt something that is unstoppable, A La Canute, we should be concentrating on adapting to the climatic future, instead of trying to shape it. Thinking that we can control nature is just a prime example of human arrogance & hubris. If any government was serious about reducing the human impact on the climate, they’d be proposing a reduction in the human population, but you never hear that, it’s all growth, growth, growth.
Finally ....a voice of reason...well said.
One thing is for sure, crippling the world's most innovative economies with unsustainably high energy costs is an absurd and self-defeating approach to tackling climate change. Technological advancement is the rational approach to not only negating the current sources of humanity's contribution, but also to ameliorating the impact of historic contributions.
Personally, I advocate for diverting all the trillions of £$¥€ being spent on decarbonisation in order to supercharge progress in developing commercially viable nuclear fusion capability. This approach would address humanity's clean energy needs for eternity, regardless of when or where we choose to migrate across the cosmos.
If I wanted more entrenched culture warfare, I’d just go on Twitter. Anyhoo… since nobody wants to talk about H4s… 
Kisin is an antagonist who thrives on slippery language used in his delivery: notice he doesn’t allow an intervention when he says, “…the climate future is going to be decided by poor people who don’t give a shit about saving the planet”.
earth.org
This wasn’t a debate, it was a very carefully worded monologue designed for social media. He’s a performer. He’s done stand up comedy at Edinburgh Fringe.
Those who want to go for EVs will find their own motives, those whose don’t, won’t. And there’s a big generational divide.
Kisin is an antagonist who thrives on slippery language used in his delivery: notice he doesn’t allow an intervention when he says, “…the climate future is going to be decided by poor people who don’t give a shit about saving the planet”.
Low-Income Communities Bear the Brunt of Climate Change
Low-income communities face a disproportionate impact from climate change that demands urgent attention and action.
earth.org
This wasn’t a debate, it was a very carefully worded monologue designed for social media. He’s a performer. He’s done stand up comedy at Edinburgh Fringe.
Those who want to go for EVs will find their own motives, those whose don’t, won’t. And there’s a big generational divide.
I think that if the powers that be are wanting an increase nuclear power stations then they should all be built deep within London and then see if they still want them. The same for wind power. What is the point of building any of these things in the country we hardly need the power or the decimation of the countryside just to power overindulgent life styles in cities and all night street lighting. It can not be efficient or cost effective to have power transmitted over large distances. We are hardly a national industrial power house but a country of shopkeepers. Then there is always the problem with emissions from N power always clouded in secrecy and then the dealing with the problems of waste. It is just shifting problems down the line of time for others to deal with. I do not beleive that N Power is cost effective in any case.
I'm not sure we're as polarised as you fear - differences in approach to solving a problem is not the same as an unwillingness to acknowledge a problem.If I wanted more entrenched culture warfare, I’d just go on Twitter. Anyhoo… since nobody wants to talk about H4s…
Kisin is an antagonist who thrives on slippery language used in his delivery: notice he doesn’t allow an intervention when he says, “…the climate future is going to be decided by poor people who don’t give a shit about saving the planet”.
View attachment 289185
Low-Income Communities Bear the Brunt of Climate Change
Low-income communities face a disproportionate impact from climate change that demands urgent attention and action.
This wasn’t a debate, it was a very carefully worded monologue designed for social media. He’s a performer. He’s done stand up comedy at Edinburgh Fringe.
Those who want to go for EVs will find their own motives, those whose don’t, won’t. And there’s a big generational divide.
There's no great surprises in these reports, but I'm not sure they provide a watertight rebuttal to Kisin's position though, as they don't address his [IMO, very reasonable] assertion that the populations of developing countries aspire to be wealthy and view de-carbonisation as a further barrier to that goal. So, whilst they're not currently the primary source of GHGs, given the trajectory of their economic growth and their significant population numbers, the likelihood in the future is that they soon will be.
I agree we should hep provide support to undeveloped and developing countries in order to facilitate their prosperity and future.
"That the climate is changing isn’t even being questioned. Is humanity responsible? Maybe, possibly, partially, even scientists can’t agree on that one. Given that the climate changes dramatically with or without human intervention is a historical fact. Can we do anything about it? Doubtful. These are the points raised in the video.
Despite the efforts of some countries, the climate is still changing. And will continue to do so, it’s a natural cycle. Rather than spending huge amounts of effort & resources trying to halt something that is unstoppable, "
Problem with a couple of things here.
Firstly a large consensus of climate scientists (>90%) do agree that us monkeys have altered our home planet's climate. Safe to say that the remaining <10% have found higher paying jobs with oil companies. Shit - can't blame them. Do you want to earn £25k a year or £50k per year?
Secondly, even if those >90% were wrong or you just hate science, historic climate events act over a much longer period than 30 years. Often in the 10,000 years and longer scales (barring massive volcano, asteroid events etc)
When each year we are breaking records for the amount of records the climate breaks each year (yes, that sentence does make sense) - year on year - it is plainly obvious that us neanderthals have screwed up.
Thirdly - the oil companies have known this for decades. BP was the first to 'spill the beans' and in their idealistic days when still owned by HM Government probably thought all the other oil companies would start pitching in and do something. Which never happened. Bit like the tobacco industry.
Whether we can do something - its gonna cost ya - unlikey.
Sorry next generation sensitive monkeys - sure they'll come up with something to mitigate it all. Good luck with that.
The above is not (but it is worrying that it might be conceived to be) controversial in any way - it just 'is'.
PS - I am not a hippy on any scale. I just read the manuals.
PPS - my internal jury is still out on whether EV makes any difference. As far as I'm concerned it just pushes the pollution problem elsewhere whether reusable energy is used or not - mining Lithium in other countries so we can put 2 or 3 tonne cars on the road doesn't make a complete load of sense but I'm sure in some ways it is better. (seeing as this is the EV thread - thought it best to put something in about them)
Despite the efforts of some countries, the climate is still changing. And will continue to do so, it’s a natural cycle. Rather than spending huge amounts of effort & resources trying to halt something that is unstoppable, "
Problem with a couple of things here.
Firstly a large consensus of climate scientists (>90%) do agree that us monkeys have altered our home planet's climate. Safe to say that the remaining <10% have found higher paying jobs with oil companies. Shit - can't blame them. Do you want to earn £25k a year or £50k per year?
Secondly, even if those >90% were wrong or you just hate science, historic climate events act over a much longer period than 30 years. Often in the 10,000 years and longer scales (barring massive volcano, asteroid events etc)
When each year we are breaking records for the amount of records the climate breaks each year (yes, that sentence does make sense) - year on year - it is plainly obvious that us neanderthals have screwed up.
Thirdly - the oil companies have known this for decades. BP was the first to 'spill the beans' and in their idealistic days when still owned by HM Government probably thought all the other oil companies would start pitching in and do something. Which never happened. Bit like the tobacco industry.
Whether we can do something - its gonna cost ya - unlikey.
Sorry next generation sensitive monkeys - sure they'll come up with something to mitigate it all. Good luck with that.
The above is not (but it is worrying that it might be conceived to be) controversial in any way - it just 'is'.
PS - I am not a hippy on any scale. I just read the manuals.
PPS - my internal jury is still out on whether EV makes any difference. As far as I'm concerned it just pushes the pollution problem elsewhere whether reusable energy is used or not - mining Lithium in other countries so we can put 2 or 3 tonne cars on the road doesn't make a complete load of sense but I'm sure in some ways it is better. (seeing as this is the EV thread - thought it best to put something in about them)
Last edited:
The science is clear, and if you know how to do the maths, as I do, you can see for yourself instead of relying on a hunch.
They're far from a breath of fresh air, for all the reasons cited here. They're not environmentally "friendly" as oft portrayed - they're simply less harmful in terms of greenhouse emissions across their lifespan, including construction, use and disposal, to the tune of an average of 300%.
That is simple, confirmed, undeniable engineering and maths. The numbers can be ignored if one so wishes, but they can't be argued away. They are an inconvenient truth.
Of course E cars are not a cure for our ills. People are still dying from en masse from lack of exercise, and simply providing an alternative motive power source won't change that.
And yes, it does move the immediate pollution from tailpipe to power station, albeit only in the case of fossil fuel generation which is now (depending on how and when its calculated) less than half of our average genersting capacity. Nevertheless, even if all our power came from burning cuddly bunnies the emissions at generation are a fraction of the equivalent at tailpipe.
Of course, if motorists hadn't been so lazy over the years the pollution would be a fraction of that which it was and there would be no imperative to develop an alternative. An example - the average car journey in Greater Manchester is less than 1000 metres. As a group we've brought all this upon ourselves with that sort of selfish, wasteful behaviour. If drivers had been less wasteful, less profligate, and better husbanded resources across the decades we wouldn't be having battery cars thrust uponnp us today.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
