It disgusts me. Fellating leopards does not prevent them from eating your face. This leopard is disgusting and Starmer makes himself foul by association
It disgusts me. Fellating leopards does not prevent them from eating your face. This leopard is disgusting and Starmer makes himself foul by association
Are they that lithe? Perhaps one could engage in soixante-neuf? At some risk to ones nethers obviously.
All moves toward all land users paying fully, backdated rent arrears for the commons. backdated to the C11th, is to be congratulated.
Especially grouse moors. We pay to flood 3,000 homes in Hebden Bridge.
I found Nick Hayes' The Book of Trespass to fill a raging pit in my ignorance that I didn't know existed. His chapter Pheasant lead me to that study above, pp 184, 6, 196, 260, 273.
In 2012 alone 'the total annual subsidies awarded to land used for grouse shooting was £17.3 million'.
Over a period of the next ten years, the taxpayer will now pay Richard Bannister a total of £2.5 million to keep to agreements that we know nothing about. This is called higher level stewardship.
...
In 2016 Walshaw Moor Ltd resumed its burning. Damages paid to the residents for flood repair totalled about a fifth of the money promised to Richard Bannister in the out-of-court settlement for his Higher Stewardship of the moor. A further £8 million of taxpayers’ money has been allocated to build defences across the Calder Valley, building walls that protect the houses of Hebden from flooding, and obscure Mr Bannister’s role in its cause.
...
The British taxpayer finances this destruction to enable the pastime of a select few. Avery estimates that the 147 moors across England, which occupy over half a million acres, are used by just 5,000 individuals – under 0.01 per cent of the population. The law defends the rights of the few over the many, by right of property alone.
That's even more disgusting. And Starmer dares do nothing about it. I have no idea why. What does the establishment have on him?
Or does he just know, from the inside, that the resources of the rich will always defeat the taxpayer or citizen in law. As Musk does.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
Better yet, the UK consumer-producer have to pay China or Musk. You know it makes sense.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
The government also need to put Ed Milliband on the back benches
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
Except of course; Stellantis announced a few months ago that they were comfortably on track to meet the current deadlines, other manufacturers seem to be doing fine, notably Ford who have managed to pick up a couple of points of market share on the back of large fleets buying hybrids and EVs.
The All or Nothing approach of Mr Miliband is not sensible. Many of the problems that people experience with EVs - range anxiety, ease and cost of charging - disappear with hybrids, but government policy won't push for people to buy them.
The problem car manufacturers are having are that people aren't buying cars. Sales of EVs continue to increase, but the drop in sales of diesel and petrol vehicles is greater than that. Overall car sales are falling at over 5% per year. Of course, fall in sales of petrol and diesel cars helps manufacturers reach the EV target, but does mean that they need to reduce the number of ICE cars they make possibly faster than they expected to.
The problem car manufacturers are having are that people aren't buying cars. Sales of EVs continue to increase, but the drop in sales of diesel and petrol vehicles is greater than that. Overall car sales are falling at over 5% per year.
Precisely, and this is a secular trend that has been in evidence for quite some time, hence car manufacturers trying turning themselves into finance companies and switching from cars to SUVs (which apart from being heavier can be sold at better margins) in order to continue to shift units and make revenue.
The All or Nothing approach of Mr Miliband is not sensible. Many of the problems that people experience with EVs - range anxiety, ease and cost of charging - disappear with hybrids, but government policy won't push for people to buy them.
Of course, most of those "problems" are actually fictional. Even the rapid chargers on motorways are significantly cheaper than the cost of petrol for the same distance of travel, if you can charge at home costs are much lower than that. The gaps in the charging network are closing and finding somewhere to charge as your battery reaches 20% before it gets very low aren't a problem (it wouldn't even usually mean going out of your way) - the apps available to find charging stations, often included in in-car sat navs, can often make it easier to find an EV charger in an unfamiliar location than it is to find a petrol station (my only experience of range anxiety was in the Highlands of Scotland when the petrol gauge was very low and my warning light had been on for 10 miles or so and I still hadn't seen a petrol station). And, there are sometimes a few hassles over charging - some failures of devices, but petrol pumps don't always work, and the not very unusual occurrence of not being able to get to a charger because some jerk with a gas-guzzling ICE has parked in front of it.
Hybrids are not a solution. You gain low emissions in urban areas and a slight increase in efficiency, though plug-in hybrids do give a significant efficiency boost especially for short journeys where you run from the battery all the way and recharge it. For motorway driving the added weight makes them basically no better than a petrol car. And, you don't gain the reliability and low maintenance of a full EV, indeed the opposite as you now have two engines to deal with.
I was at a meeting last night where my MP was present who also happens to be the Minister of State for Industry. She said that she met with the directors of Vauxhall a week after the election and that they had already made up their minds to close the Luton plant. It seems this has been on the cards for nearly two years.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
It's essentially the same as saying it doesn't matter if I shit in the local pond because water companies have been pouring raw sewage into Windermere.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
The government also need to put Ed Milliband on the back benches
I note that this is the effect of mandates set by the previous government. Other countries have subsidised electric vehicles in various ways but the previous government decided just to impose a rule with no carrot to go with the stick. Another example of them leaving a problem for Labour to deal with and then blaming Labour.
I note you will probably not be around for the effects of global warming to affect you personally. My daughters will be.
Those who live in areas recently flooded here in the UK or Spain or , impacted by the couple of severe hurricanes in the US or typhoon in Philippines, or wildfires around the world etc are already feeling the effects of global warming personally. There's good evidence that these, and other severe weather events, are being made worse as a result of global warming and other environmental damage we've caused.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
and you are losing it. What's stupid is trying to do everything with an unreliable source of energy.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
and you are losing it. What's stupid is trying to do everything with an unreliable source of energy.
Electricity is unreliable. As opposed to internal combustion engines... right.
I'm interested in quite how electricity is unreliable.
Yes, you may find a charger that's not working, or all the chargers at a particular place are in use, or even blocked by cars who aren't using them. But, I've pulled into petrol stations without fuel, or found myself having to wait in a long queue to get to the pumps. That doesn't seem to be a significant difference, both would make each fuel "unreliable".
Batteries in EVs last far longer than the mechanical components in a ICE. How many times would you need to change oil, replace coolant, change fan belts or spark plugs, replace an exhaust or fix a gear box etc to keep an ICE going over the 200,000+ miles an EV will run without any of that fuss? Is that "unreliable"?
There are scare stories about batteries catching fire, which does occasionally happen but far less frequently than a petrol or diesel engine catches fire. Maybe having a lower risk of catching fire makes them "unreliable"?
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
Or perhaps address the reasons why EVs are not popular.
EVs are more mechanically robust, and require less maintenance, than petrol cars. On the flip side, EVs all seem to be heavily computerized (a trend with all modern cars), and who knows what reliability will look like for modern touchscreens and similar junk. Most people's experience of such things is in phones and laptops, both of which have a service life very much smaller than that of a car. People (reasonably) expect cars to last 20 years or so. Modern batteries are likely to outlast the car - can one say the same for all the tech?
For local journeys, for people who are able to charge their car at home, EVs are great. No worries about refueling, and domestic electricity is comparatively cheap.
EVs take significantly longer to charge than petrol cars take to refuel. This is a fact. Mentioning it usually results in the EV brigade telling you how you need to stop for a break, and a coffee, and to use the loo anyway, and so this doesn't actually add extra time to your journey. Lots of other people hear this argument and think "that's bollocks".
Charging costs: DC fast charging for EVs in the UK apparently averages about 74p/kWh, which is about three times the rate you'll pay to charge at home. Typical EVs get between 3 and 4 miles per kWh (depending on size and on speed you're driving), so that's 20-25p per mile in "fuel" costs. Petrol in the UK runs around £1.35 per litre, and a reasonable car might get somewhere around 10 miles per litre, so that's 13.5p per mile.
@Alan Cresswell claims "Even the rapid chargers on motorways are significantly cheaper than the cost of petrol for the same distance of travel", so I'd like to see his figures, because mine don't agree with him. Mine say that charging an EV exclusively on DC "fast" chargers will run almost twice as expensive per mile as a petrol car.
Charge at home is cheaper, and is cheaper still if you charge on an economy nighttime rate.
The fact is that if you're going to drive enough distance that you routinely need to charge away from home, owning an EV involves significantly more planning than owning a petrol car. You have to plan for where you're going to find charging, and not just assume there will be a petrol station nearby when you need one. You have to plan for what you'll do in the time it takes you to charge (for petrol cars, "charging" is quick, so decisions about refueling are decoupled from other choices about how you spend your time. If I drive an EV, I currently have to spend more time than I want to thinking about my car. (The time I want to spend thinking about my car is zero. I just want to get in it and go where I want to go, when I want to go.)
@Alan Cresswell claims "Even the rapid chargers on motorways are significantly cheaper than the cost of petrol for the same distance of travel", so I'd like to see his figures, because mine don't agree with him. Mine say that charging an EV exclusively on DC "fast" chargers will run almost twice as expensive per mile as a petrol car.
I get about 7km per kWh. The most expensive charging I've seen on motorways has been 80p per kWh, so that's 11.4p/km, maximum but I agree few rapid chargers would be less than 70p/kWh giving 10.0p/km.
A similar sized car would manage about 15km/L petrol. I'm not sure what the current price for petrol on the motorway is (or, anywhere else for that matter), about £1.80 last time I got some. Which is about 12p/km.
OK, so I agree the maths don't add up, with similar costs per km. Which is odd because when I drive down to my mum the cost of charging the car is definitely quite a bit less than I was paying for petrol 2 years ago, by about 25% or more. Which might mean my old petrol car was a lot less efficient than I thought - good thing I dumped it. Plus, when driving petrol I got down after 8-9h totally shattered and needed a day to recover whereas I now get down after 8-9h refreshed and able to spend a few hours talking with my mum before bed (almost as relaxed as I am when I get the train, which is by far the best option ... providing I don't need to get around places while I'm there).
OK, so I agree the maths don't add up, with similar costs per km. Which is odd because when I drive down to my mum the cost of charging the car is definitely quite a bit less than I was paying for petrol 2 years ago, by about 25% or more.
Presumably you start your journey in a fully-charged car, and don't need to arrive home with a fully-charged car. That helps, because a chunk of your journey is at home charging prices.
Plus, when driving petrol I got down after 8-9h totally shattered and needed a day to recover whereas I now get down after 8-9h refreshed and able to spend a few hours talking with my mum before bed
What is it about your EV that you think makes it such a different driving experience? Is it the lack of engine noise in the cabin? You're taking the same time in both cars, so are presumably stopping to rest just as much in both cases. Does your EV have more driver assistance than your old petrol car?
Personally, I find adaptive cruise control to be a significant benefit in terms of how I feel after a long drive. I don't find the lane assistance features helpful.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
and you are losing it. What's stupid is trying to do everything with an unreliable source of energy.
Electricity is unreliable. As opposed to internal combustion engines... right.
What utter bollocks.
How do you propose to heat homes, charge EVs, provide electricity for homes, street lighting and businesses, when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?
OK, so I agree the maths don't add up, with similar costs per km. Which is odd because when I drive down to my mum the cost of charging the car is definitely quite a bit less than I was paying for petrol 2 years ago, by about 25% or more.
Presumably you start your journey in a fully-charged car, and don't need to arrive home with a fully-charged car. That helps, because a chunk of your journey is at home charging prices.
Yes, it makes a small difference. I don't have option to charge at home, so use public charging. Here rates for standard and fast charging is 40p/kWh ... so though cheaper than the rapid charging, it's not that big a difference. But, yes with about a third of the journey being charged at cheaper rate would make a reduction. On the other hand, with the petrol car a significant chunk of the journey was having filled up at supermarket before leaving and only some of the journey was with motorway service station petrol, which is going to be a similar effect.
Plus, when driving petrol I got down after 8-9h totally shattered and needed a day to recover whereas I now get down after 8-9h refreshed and able to spend a few hours talking with my mum before bed
What is it about your EV that you think makes it such a different driving experience? Is it the lack of engine noise in the cabin? You're taking the same time in both cars, so are presumably stopping to rest just as much in both cases. Does your EV have more driver assistance than your old petrol car?
I do have driver assistance available, cruise control for example. But, I find cruise control to be annoying, as I only get a couple of miles and traffic builds up and slows down and I'm cancelling it, so it's not something I use. Motorways are simply too busy to just set a speed and stick too it. Besides, set in eco mode my car just trundles along at a steady 65mph without doing much to keep that speed, even without cruise control, and no need to even do much to keep an eye on speed.
The biggest difference is the lack of noise and vibration, a very smooth ride. I probably stop for maybe 5-10 minutes longer at each break (usually 2, unless I get stuck in very slow traffic for a long while), and there's something about not feeling the need to rush a break to get going that's more relaxing even when the break itself isn't much longer. Is that more psychological than anything? That going into a service station knowing you'll be there an hour and not worrying about how fast the queue at the food outlet is moving is more relaxing than going in for a meal and fussing about the queue length etc even when you're still there for an hour.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
and you are losing it. What's stupid is trying to do everything with an unreliable source of energy.
Electricity is unreliable. As opposed to internal combustion engines... right.
What utter bollocks.
How do you propose to heat homes, charge EVs, provide electricity for homes, street lighting and businesses, when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?
There are other means of generating electricity. Diversification helps to maintain supply on windless days - both in terms of method (hydro, tidal etc as well as wind and solar) and geography (if it's not windy in SE England there's probably wind in Scotland). And there are storage options to ease out variations in both supply and demand - that includes the large pumped storage hydro schemes that were built to address the unreliable nature of nuclear power.
Besides though output from renewables varies it does so in a very predictable way; I'd expect every wind or solar farm in the country to have a chart of how much power they'll be generating every hour (probably shorter intervals) for the next 5 days or so, and for what they actually generate to vary from that prediction by no more than a few percent. That means that there are options to change demand to better match supply - even without that info and any smart systems I make the choice to only charge my car when the wind is blowing if at all possible.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
and you are losing it. What's stupid is trying to do everything with an unreliable source of energy.
Electricity is unreliable. As opposed to internal combustion engines... right.
What utter bollocks.
How do you propose to heat homes, charge EVs, provide electricity for homes, street lighting and businesses, when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?
There are other means of generating electricity. Diversification helps to maintain supply on windless days - both in terms of method (hydro, tidal etc as well as wind and solar) and geography (if it's not windy in SE England there's probably wind in Scotland). And there are storage options to ease out variations in both supply and demand - that includes the large pumped storage hydro schemes that were built to address the unreliable nature of nuclear power.
Besides though output from renewables varies it does so in a very predictable way; I'd expect every wind or solar farm in the country to have a chart of how much power they'll be generating every hour (probably shorter intervals) for the next 5 days or so, and for what they actually generate to vary from that prediction by no more than a few percent. That means that there are options to change demand to better match supply - even without that info and any smart systems I make the choice to only charge my car when the wind is blowing if at all possible.
My point is that when we have to stop using fossil fuels, we will have to produce far more electricity than we need to do at the moment.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
and you are losing it. What's stupid is trying to do everything with an unreliable source of energy.
Electricity is unreliable. As opposed to internal combustion engines... right.
What utter bollocks.
How do you propose to heat homes, charge EVs, provide electricity for homes, street lighting and businesses, when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?
There are other means of generating electricity. Diversification helps to maintain supply on windless days - both in terms of method (hydro, tidal etc as well as wind and solar) and geography (if it's not windy in SE England there's probably wind in Scotland). And there are storage options to ease out variations in both supply and demand - that includes the large pumped storage hydro schemes that were built to address the unreliable nature of nuclear power.
Besides though output from renewables varies it does so in a very predictable way; I'd expect every wind or solar farm in the country to have a chart of how much power they'll be generating every hour (probably shorter intervals) for the next 5 days or so, and for what they actually generate to vary from that prediction by no more than a few percent. That means that there are options to change demand to better match supply - even without that info and any smart systems I make the choice to only charge my car when the wind is blowing if at all possible.
My point is that when we have to stop using fossil fuels, we will have to produce far more electricity than we need to do at the moment.
Only if we use more electricity, and even with electrification of transport (cars, trains etc) and heating we're still reducing how much energy we use as our homes and vehicles and gadgets get more efficient (since 2005 total energy use per capita has fallen about 25%). Yes, as we stop burning stuff to generate electricity there will need to be other generating capacity to replace most of that removed capacity, but we won't need to produce more - certainly not far more.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
and you are losing it. What's stupid is trying to do everything with an unreliable source of energy.
Electricity is unreliable. As opposed to internal combustion engines... right.
What utter bollocks.
How do you propose to heat homes, charge EVs, provide electricity for homes, street lighting and businesses, when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?
There are other means of generating electricity. Diversification helps to maintain supply on windless days - both in terms of method (hydro, tidal etc as well as wind and solar) and geography (if it's not windy in SE England there's probably wind in Scotland). And there are storage options to ease out variations in both supply and demand - that includes the large pumped storage hydro schemes that were built to address the unreliable nature of nuclear power.
Besides though output from renewables varies it does so in a very predictable way; I'd expect every wind or solar farm in the country to have a chart of how much power they'll be generating every hour (probably shorter intervals) for the next 5 days or so, and for what they actually generate to vary from that prediction by no more than a few percent. That means that there are options to change demand to better match supply - even without that info and any smart systems I make the choice to only charge my car when the wind is blowing if at all possible.
My point is that when we have to stop using fossil fuels, we will have to produce far more electricity than we need to do at the moment.
Only if we use more electricity, and even with electrification of transport (cars, trains etc) and heating we're still reducing how much energy we use as our homes and vehicles and gadgets get more efficient (since 2005 total energy use per capita has fallen about 25%). Yes, as we stop burning stuff to generate electricity there will need to be other generating capacity to replace most of that removed capacity, but we won't need to produce more - certainly not far more.
Just enough to power all our vehicles, cook our food and heat all our homes
A couple of quick comments. The Haigh issue. Embarrassing for Starmer on all sorts of levels.
EVs, there seem to be pros and cons but the technology is improving. I'd like to see better public transport and less traffic on the roads but can't see that happening any time soon.
EVs or no EVs I'm a tight-wad and only stop at service stations to use the loo rather than buy an over-priced 'meal'. I have noticed though, that there are increasingly alternatives to junk food at these places. I don't buy petrol at motorway service stations as it's too pricey.
I will buy a coffee occasionally on long journeys but sometimes take my own tea or coffee in a flask because I'm a tight git.
Sad news that Vauxhall is closing its operation at Luton after 119 years in the town.
When few want to buy your product, it's the logical result for the company
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
All true. If EV's are not popular, they need to allow the manufacture of vehicles that are popular and stop fretting about out 1% of global emmissions.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
and you are losing it. What's stupid is trying to do everything with an unreliable source of energy.
Electricity is unreliable. As opposed to internal combustion engines... right.
What utter bollocks.
How do you propose to heat homes, charge EVs, provide electricity for homes, street lighting and businesses, when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?
There are other means of generating electricity. Diversification helps to maintain supply on windless days - both in terms of method (hydro, tidal etc as well as wind and solar) and geography (if it's not windy in SE England there's probably wind in Scotland). And there are storage options to ease out variations in both supply and demand - that includes the large pumped storage hydro schemes that were built to address the unreliable nature of nuclear power.
Besides though output from renewables varies it does so in a very predictable way; I'd expect every wind or solar farm in the country to have a chart of how much power they'll be generating every hour (probably shorter intervals) for the next 5 days or so, and for what they actually generate to vary from that prediction by no more than a few percent. That means that there are options to change demand to better match supply - even without that info and any smart systems I make the choice to only charge my car when the wind is blowing if at all possible.
My point is that when we have to stop using fossil fuels, we will have to produce far more electricity than we need to do at the moment.
Only if we use more electricity, and even with electrification of transport (cars, trains etc) and heating we're still reducing how much energy we use as our homes and vehicles and gadgets get more efficient (since 2005 total energy use per capita has fallen about 25%). Yes, as we stop burning stuff to generate electricity there will need to be other generating capacity to replace most of that removed capacity, but we won't need to produce more - certainly not far more.
Just enough to power all our vehicles, cook our food and heat all our homes
I think you're probably seriously overestimating the amount of energy needed to maintain our current standard of living without burning stuff to do so. It's not just as simple as working out how much energy is currently produced by burning stuff and saying we need that much energy from renewables. The energy needed to drive an EV is a lot less than the energy needed to drive an equivalent size ICE, because electric drive units are far more efficient (over 90% of energy supplied by a battery is used to turn the wheels, compared to less than a third of the energy from exploding fuel inside an ICE). As the number of cars on our roads decrease and more people use buses and trains or cycle then the energy needs for transport will continue to fall. As we improve the quality of our housing and other buildings (both new buildings built to higher standards of energy efficiency and improving efficiency of current buildings) the amount of energy needed to keep them warm in winter and cool in the summer will be reduced. As we replace our older stuff (TVs, computers and other gadgets) the new stuff we replace that with will be more efficient. As we increase the amount of stuff we reuse and recycle we'll reduce the energy demands of manufacturing new stuff from scratch.
Thanks, Louise - that makes an interesting read. I note with amusement that the article describes a journey of 44 miles in a Norwegian winter as a "road trip". That's almost exactly the distance I drove this morning to drop my daughter off at the theater to rehearse for her ballet, and I'll drive the same distance again later this afternoon to collect her.
The key to the article seems to be that Norway threw significant subsidies behind EVs. If it's significantly cheaper to buy an EV than an equivalent petrol car, people will be more likely to buy the cheap option and put up with the extra delay and inconvenience of charging.
Some people will buy EVs anyway, because they're environmentalists or early tech adopters, but most people just want transport.
Ms Haigh says that Starmer knew about her conviction. Starmer denies this. Who's telling the truth ?
I do not see any reports that Starmer denies that he knew about her conviction. The technical matter she is resigning over is that she did not officially disclose it to the government as she says she was only asked about unspent convictions.
Ms Haigh says that Starmer knew about her conviction. Starmer denies this. Who's telling the truth ?
I do not see any reports that Starmer denies that he knew about her conviction. The technical matter she is resigning over is that she did not officially disclose it to the government as she says she was only asked about unspent convictions.
I'd much rather have ministers who have a record of minor crimes in the past than recent examples of ministers and senior political aides who use their position to actively defraud the UK public of millions.
I'd much rather have ministers who have a record of minor crimes in the past than recent examples of ministers and senior political aides who use their position to actively defraud the UK public of millions.
It does appear that the principle behind her resignation is that it is not sufficient to merely be clean but one must appear clean as well.
I'd much rather have ministers who have a record of minor crimes in the past than recent examples of ministers and senior political aides who use their position to actively defraud the UK public of millions.
It does appear that the principle behind her resignation is that it is not sufficient to merely be clean but one must appear clean as well.
Only '10s kids will remember when the police decided not to investigate a minister over claims of fraud.
It does appear that the principle behind her resignation is that it is not sufficient to merely be clean but one must appear clean as well.
Only '10s kids will remember when the police decided not to investigate a minister over claims of fraud.
But those would have been Tory ministers who are innocent until proven guilty. Labour ministers are guilty until proven innocent.
Totally agree with the sentiment here, though slightly undermined obviously in this specific case by her, er (checks notes), actually pleading guilty. I think proving her innocent would therefore be a stretch regardless of who wanted to.
Also, her account is that she was advised to plead guilty even though she considered it an honest mistake. Which is something many people would recognise. Many years ago someone claimed (several months after the fact) that I had reversed my car into their motorbike and caused significant damage, the insurance company wanted me to just admit fault so they could pay up and settle because fighting it through court was not going to be worth it. I don't know the details of Ms Haigh's case, but I can see how many people end up following the advice of just pleading guilty over something very minor to avoid the costs of going to court.
Whether that 'crime' is sufficient to be a bar to ministerial office I don't know, but she honestly and correctly answered the questions put to her about criminal record and the civil service didn't consider that sort of offense worth asking her about. The Labour Party may decide to hold their members to a higher standard than required under law, but if that's the case then they should make it clear to their members what those standards are.
Up-thread I raised the issue of Starmer writing in the Sun and Mail and got pushback to the effect that this was merely rhetoric and 'we had to see the policies', which I said at the time was supremely short sighted.
Labour have now spent the last week briefing out a message that the Tories ran an experimental 'one nation open borders policy', with Starmer running the 14-words in the blandest most boring way possible: https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1862158721347932537
The growth target has also been revised downwards.
It's clear that having reached the limits of what they are willing to do with the economy they've decided to have a play with the culture war dial instead (immigration with a side of railing against 'regulators').
Adopting the messaging strategy of Reform is the quickest way of creating the conditions for a Farage or Farage like figure in government, perhaps Starmer isn't racist, but at the very least this comes over as both venal and stupid.
Comments
https://x.com/sgfmann/status/1860436015032226237
But it's all just rhetoric, look at what they actually propose, etc.
Are they that lithe? Perhaps one could engage in soixante-neuf? At some risk to ones nethers obviously.
All moves toward all land users paying fully, backdated rent arrears for the commons. backdated to the C11th, is to be congratulated.
Especially grouse moors. We pay to flood 3,000 homes in Hebden Bridge.
I found Nick Hayes' The Book of Trespass to fill a raging pit in my ignorance that I didn't know existed. His chapter Pheasant lead me to that study above, pp 184, 6, 196, 260, 273.
In 2012 alone 'the total annual subsidies awarded to land used for grouse shooting was £17.3 million'.
That's even more disgusting. And Starmer dares do nothing about it. I have no idea why. What does the establishment have on him?
Or does he just know, from the inside, that the resources of the rich will always defeat the taxpayer or citizen in law. As Musk does.
They're stuck: people want to buy petrol and diesel vans and cars but if they make enough to fill that need they're going to be punished for "under-producing" EVs that people aren't buying.
Better yet, the UK consumer-producer have to pay China or Musk. You know it makes sense.
The government also need to put Ed Milliband on the back benches
Except of course; Stellantis announced a few months ago that they were comfortably on track to meet the current deadlines, other manufacturers seem to be doing fine, notably Ford who have managed to pick up a couple of points of market share on the back of large fleets buying hybrids and EVs.
Precisely, and this is a secular trend that has been in evidence for quite some time, hence car manufacturers trying turning themselves into finance companies and switching from cars to SUVs (which apart from being heavier can be sold at better margins) in order to continue to shift units and make revenue.
Hybrids are not a solution. You gain low emissions in urban areas and a slight increase in efficiency, though plug-in hybrids do give a significant efficiency boost especially for short journeys where you run from the battery all the way and recharge it. For motorway driving the added weight makes them basically no better than a petrol car. And, you don't gain the reliability and low maintenance of a full EV, indeed the opposite as you now have two engines to deal with.
This is a fecking stupid argument.
It's essentially the same as saying it doesn't matter if I shit in the local pond because water companies have been pouring raw sewage into Windermere.
I note you will probably not be around for the effects of global warming to affect you personally. My daughters will be.
Although Labour are quite capable of creating their own transport related problems too…
Electricity is unreliable. As opposed to internal combustion engines... right.
What utter bollocks.
Yes, you may find a charger that's not working, or all the chargers at a particular place are in use, or even blocked by cars who aren't using them. But, I've pulled into petrol stations without fuel, or found myself having to wait in a long queue to get to the pumps. That doesn't seem to be a significant difference, both would make each fuel "unreliable".
Batteries in EVs last far longer than the mechanical components in a ICE. How many times would you need to change oil, replace coolant, change fan belts or spark plugs, replace an exhaust or fix a gear box etc to keep an ICE going over the 200,000+ miles an EV will run without any of that fuss? Is that "unreliable"?
There are scare stories about batteries catching fire, which does occasionally happen but far less frequently than a petrol or diesel engine catches fire. Maybe having a lower risk of catching fire makes them "unreliable"?
Or perhaps address the reasons why EVs are not popular.
EVs are more mechanically robust, and require less maintenance, than petrol cars. On the flip side, EVs all seem to be heavily computerized (a trend with all modern cars), and who knows what reliability will look like for modern touchscreens and similar junk. Most people's experience of such things is in phones and laptops, both of which have a service life very much smaller than that of a car. People (reasonably) expect cars to last 20 years or so. Modern batteries are likely to outlast the car - can one say the same for all the tech?
For local journeys, for people who are able to charge their car at home, EVs are great. No worries about refueling, and domestic electricity is comparatively cheap.
EVs take significantly longer to charge than petrol cars take to refuel. This is a fact. Mentioning it usually results in the EV brigade telling you how you need to stop for a break, and a coffee, and to use the loo anyway, and so this doesn't actually add extra time to your journey. Lots of other people hear this argument and think "that's bollocks".
Charging costs: DC fast charging for EVs in the UK apparently averages about 74p/kWh, which is about three times the rate you'll pay to charge at home. Typical EVs get between 3 and 4 miles per kWh (depending on size and on speed you're driving), so that's 20-25p per mile in "fuel" costs. Petrol in the UK runs around £1.35 per litre, and a reasonable car might get somewhere around 10 miles per litre, so that's 13.5p per mile.
@Alan Cresswell claims "Even the rapid chargers on motorways are significantly cheaper than the cost of petrol for the same distance of travel", so I'd like to see his figures, because mine don't agree with him. Mine say that charging an EV exclusively on DC "fast" chargers will run almost twice as expensive per mile as a petrol car.
Charge at home is cheaper, and is cheaper still if you charge on an economy nighttime rate.
The fact is that if you're going to drive enough distance that you routinely need to charge away from home, owning an EV involves significantly more planning than owning a petrol car. You have to plan for where you're going to find charging, and not just assume there will be a petrol station nearby when you need one. You have to plan for what you'll do in the time it takes you to charge (for petrol cars, "charging" is quick, so decisions about refueling are decoupled from other choices about how you spend your time. If I drive an EV, I currently have to spend more time than I want to thinking about my car. (The time I want to spend thinking about my car is zero. I just want to get in it and go where I want to go, when I want to go.)
A similar sized car would manage about 15km/L petrol. I'm not sure what the current price for petrol on the motorway is (or, anywhere else for that matter), about £1.80 last time I got some. Which is about 12p/km.
OK, so I agree the maths don't add up, with similar costs per km. Which is odd because when I drive down to my mum the cost of charging the car is definitely quite a bit less than I was paying for petrol 2 years ago, by about 25% or more. Which might mean my old petrol car was a lot less efficient than I thought - good thing I dumped it. Plus, when driving petrol I got down after 8-9h totally shattered and needed a day to recover whereas I now get down after 8-9h refreshed and able to spend a few hours talking with my mum before bed (almost as relaxed as I am when I get the train, which is by far the best option ... providing I don't need to get around places while I'm there).
Presumably you start your journey in a fully-charged car, and don't need to arrive home with a fully-charged car. That helps, because a chunk of your journey is at home charging prices.
What is it about your EV that you think makes it such a different driving experience? Is it the lack of engine noise in the cabin? You're taking the same time in both cars, so are presumably stopping to rest just as much in both cases. Does your EV have more driver assistance than your old petrol car?
Personally, I find adaptive cruise control to be a significant benefit in terms of how I feel after a long drive. I don't find the lane assistance features helpful.
I do have driver assistance available, cruise control for example. But, I find cruise control to be annoying, as I only get a couple of miles and traffic builds up and slows down and I'm cancelling it, so it's not something I use. Motorways are simply too busy to just set a speed and stick too it. Besides, set in eco mode my car just trundles along at a steady 65mph without doing much to keep that speed, even without cruise control, and no need to even do much to keep an eye on speed.
The biggest difference is the lack of noise and vibration, a very smooth ride. I probably stop for maybe 5-10 minutes longer at each break (usually 2, unless I get stuck in very slow traffic for a long while), and there's something about not feeling the need to rush a break to get going that's more relaxing even when the break itself isn't much longer. Is that more psychological than anything? That going into a service station knowing you'll be there an hour and not worrying about how fast the queue at the food outlet is moving is more relaxing than going in for a meal and fussing about the queue length etc even when you're still there for an hour.
Besides though output from renewables varies it does so in a very predictable way; I'd expect every wind or solar farm in the country to have a chart of how much power they'll be generating every hour (probably shorter intervals) for the next 5 days or so, and for what they actually generate to vary from that prediction by no more than a few percent. That means that there are options to change demand to better match supply - even without that info and any smart systems I make the choice to only charge my car when the wind is blowing if at all possible.
My point is that when we have to stop using fossil fuels, we will have to produce far more electricity than we need to do at the moment.
On another subject, Should Prime Minister Satarmer have appointed someone to his cabinet who had failed to reveal her criminal conviction ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y31zyw90vo
EVs, there seem to be pros and cons but the technology is improving. I'd like to see better public transport and less traffic on the roads but can't see that happening any time soon.
EVs or no EVs I'm a tight-wad and only stop at service stations to use the loo rather than buy an over-priced 'meal'. I have noticed though, that there are increasingly alternatives to junk food at these places. I don't buy petrol at motorway service stations as it's too pricey.
I will buy a coffee occasionally on long journeys but sometimes take my own tea or coffee in a flask because I'm a tight git.
This Is What the World’s First All-EV Car Market Looks Like
Thanks, Louise - that makes an interesting read. I note with amusement that the article describes a journey of 44 miles in a Norwegian winter as a "road trip". That's almost exactly the distance I drove this morning to drop my daughter off at the theater to rehearse for her ballet, and I'll drive the same distance again later this afternoon to collect her.
The key to the article seems to be that Norway threw significant subsidies behind EVs. If it's significantly cheaper to buy an EV than an equivalent petrol car, people will be more likely to buy the cheap option and put up with the extra delay and inconvenience of charging.
Some people will buy EVs anyway, because they're environmentalists or early tech adopters, but most people just want transport.
At the moment. That's just a matter of having the will to put roadside charging points in
Only '10s kids will remember when the police decided not to investigate a minister over claims of fraud.
Totally agree with the sentiment here, though slightly undermined obviously in this specific case by her, er (checks notes), actually pleading guilty. I think proving her innocent would therefore be a stretch regardless of who wanted to.
Whether that 'crime' is sufficient to be a bar to ministerial office I don't know, but she honestly and correctly answered the questions put to her about criminal record and the civil service didn't consider that sort of offense worth asking her about. The Labour Party may decide to hold their members to a higher standard than required under law, but if that's the case then they should make it clear to their members what those standards are.
The fact that we are obliged to presume unconvicted people to be innocent, doesn't mean that they were.
Yep. The press has a bias to the Tories. It is just fact.
Labour have now spent the last week briefing out a message that the Tories ran an experimental 'one nation open borders policy', with Starmer running the 14-words in the blandest most boring way possible: https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1862158721347932537
The growth target has also been revised downwards.
It's clear that having reached the limits of what they are willing to do with the economy they've decided to have a play with the culture war dial instead (immigration with a side of railing against 'regulators').
Adopting the messaging strategy of Reform is the quickest way of creating the conditions for a Farage or Farage like figure in government, perhaps Starmer isn't racist, but at the very least this comes over as both venal and stupid.