EV sales Booming year on year

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
21

Franglais:

switchlogic:

Franglais:
Chernobyl 30 direct deaths.

.

Not doing yourself any favours with that fact to be fair :smiley:

I know…

But if CF wants to include deaths from radiation pollution?
16,000? Through Europe.
.
How many deaths from pollution caused by coal and other fossil fuels?
12,000 deaths in London alone from smog in the fifties.
.

I don’t think the London smog was ever going to hurt anyone after the clean air act banning the use of poor quality domestic coal and the closure of London’s power stations and getting rid of steam engines on all the rail routes in town, the combination of which is what caused it.
Let alone hurt anyone 1,000 years later from Plutonium etc poisoning.
I do agree with maintaining a minimum nuclear industry to defend ourselves from hostile forces.
Such as those clearly intent on taking over the world’s supply of cheap safe fossil fuel from us whether by subterfuge in the veiled threat of nuclear attack or actual attack.
Nukes only have a place as a weapon of last resort they have no place in civil engineering and civil energy policy.
The fact is our nuclear energy industry was directly linked and limited to our nuclear weapons warhead production.It’s an expensive and lethal form of energy.
Which is why it’s the ultimate weapons system and it’s also why Drax etc burnt coal.
While Windscale etc were just a minimum, secretive, out of sight and out of mind irrelevance to the country’s energy policy and supply ( luckily ) and that’s how it should stay.
All the pro nuclear climate useful idiots should be made to read Svetlana Alexievich’s article.While no true green activist would prefer the evil of nuclear energy or for that matter burning living trees in the form of biomass over the far lesser evil if any of burning fossil fuel.
The choice is a no brainer.

22

Aberfan killed far more people than all the nuclear reactor faults, fires and explosions.

23

Wheel Nut:
Aberfan killed far more people than all the nuclear reactor faults, fires and explosions.

That statement could have come straight out of Pravda.The irony.
Using the example of a disaster, which was caused by a government money saving agenda and was then covered up, to justify doing it all again in the form of using nukes as a civilian energy strategy.

While the Daily Mirror and Greenpeace aren’t known for being pro fossil fuel.More irony.
Pointing out the hazards of nuclear energy while backing the government to impose an energy policy based on nuclear.

mirror.co.uk/news/world-news … l-21908352

24

Wheel Nut:
Aberfan killed far more people than all the nuclear reactor faults, fires and explosions.

But Aberfan didn’t make South Wales uninhabitable (chernobil), nor is it polluting the sea (Fukushima), nor did it pollute a vast area of the world via fallout.

Comparing Aberfan with a nuclear disaster is utterly pointless and shows a lack of argument.

Just stick to posting links to YouTube '“experten” who support your argument.

(Mainly Franglais who brought it up first)

25

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

switchlogic:
First?

Windscale was just a warning it wasn’t the Brit version of Chernobyl.
The ‘climate’ useful idiots really are deluded if they think that their crusade could withstand the type of backlash caused by people being forced to leave their homes with nowhere safe to run and massive food shortages caused by agricultural land being wiped out in a country this small and densely populated.
No doubt Great Thunderfart and all her useful idiot followers like Bozo will make their excuses and denials telling us that it was a price worth paying to solve a problem that exists only in their heads.

And the rest? One of which you name, so you know it won’t be first

I’m talking about this country specifically.France is more than capable of wiping itself and its neighbours out.Whio needs a nuclear war.

War? Hang on how did you get to war from power?!

26

the nodding donkey:

Wheel Nut:
Aberfan killed far more people than all the nuclear reactor faults, fires and explosions.

But Aberfan didn’t make South Wales uninhabitable (chernobil), nor is it polluting the sea (Fukushima), nor did it pollute a vast area of the world via fallout.

Comparing Aberfan with a nuclear disaster is utterly pointless and shows a lack of argument.

Just stick to posting links to YouTube '“experten” who support your argument.

(Mainly Franglais who brought it up first)

Also bearing in mind that cars and trucks weren’t fuelled by coal since we ditched steam wagons.While domestic fuel is now mostly based on gas not coal.Including even electricity generation.
Basically the zero carbon choice comes down to maintaining the status quo of nuclear being associated with weapons only and fossil fuel is by far the lesser if any evil for civil energy policy, or all bets are off.Wind power won’t cut it and the government knows it.
While biomass just means burning useful to the environment living trees instead of useless dead ones and solar means wrecking agricultural land under solar panels.
Also bearing in mind that no oil or gas wells are being capped anywhere any time soon.In fact more are being brought online constantly for the use of exempt ‘developing countries’ so why subject ourselves to all this needless, expensive, anything but green, dangerous aggro all based on the idea that CO2 cooked Venus.
cleanerenergywire.org/factss … -phase-out

27

edit
cleanenergywire.org/factshee … -phase-out

28

switchlogic:
War? Hang on how did you get to war from power?!

The only place for nuclear power is as a necessary part of the nuclear weapons production process.
France has enough nuclear reactors, as a result of its suicidal civil nuclear energy policy, to really mess up its own and neighbours’ day given a Chernobyl type incident and proportionally increasing the odds of it happening.
Creating similar long term widespread radiation pollution and effects as would be expected of a nuclear attack.
Together with the biomass industry this is the real and unacceptable, anything but green, face of the all electric ‘climate’ agenda nightmare.At 26p per kwh for the privilege.

29

switchlogic:

Juddian:

switchlogic:
I need a car now my car licence is finally back and if I had the money I’d go electric. Alas I don’t have the money so it’ll probably be an asthmatic 20 year old Nissan Micra. I’ll look so cool.

That’s really good news, hopefully the lorry stamps won’t be far behind.

So long as you don’t use the word old when describing the Micra, and instead call it ‘retro’, the cool factor will be strong.

Personally i’d be looking out for an Aygo/C1/107, probably the best small car after the Toyota Starlet ever made, 1.0 litre 3 pot is better than you might imagine so long as it get an oil change now and again and very good on fuel, £30 max VED some years free VED, plus very good at rust resistance.
But down there in the back of beyond don’t suppose there’s a world of car choice.

Oh an Aygo is a good idea cheers. I love super small cars! One of best I’ve ever owned was a Smartcar, so that’s an option

My missus has an Aygo Luke. It’s a nice little motor but around here (Pennines) the 1.0 power plant is absolutely gutless. It wont go up one of our local hills in anything but first gear. With 3 passengers it’s touch and go whether it will go up at all…[emoji85]

I still like it though. But it’s better if you’re not in a hilly area.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

30

Truckulent:

switchlogic:

Juddian:

switchlogic:
I need a car now my car licence is finally back and if I had the money I’d go electric. Alas I don’t have the money so it’ll probably be an asthmatic 20 year old Nissan Micra. I’ll look so cool.

That’s really good news, hopefully the lorry stamps won’t be far behind.

So long as you don’t use the word old when describing the Micra, and instead call it ‘retro’, the cool factor will be strong.

Personally i’d be looking out for an Aygo/C1/107, probably the best small car after the Toyota Starlet ever made, 1.0 litre 3 pot is better than you might imagine so long as it get an oil change now and again and very good on fuel, £30 max VED some years free VED, plus very good at rust resistance.
But down there in the back of beyond don’t suppose there’s a world of car choice.

Oh an Aygo is a good idea cheers. I love super small cars! One of best I’ve ever owned was a Smartcar, so that’s an option

My missus has an Aygo Luke. It’s a nice little motor but around here (Pennines) the 1.0 power plant is absolutely gutless. It wont go up one of our local hills in anything but first gear. With 3 passengers it’s touch and go whether it will go up at all…[emoji85]

I still like it though. But it’s better if you’re not in a hilly area.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

To be honest that’s probably for the best with my track record :smiley:

31

Carryfast:

switchlogic:
War? Hang on how did you get to war from power?!

The only place for nuclear power is as a necessary part of the nuclear weapons production process.
France has enough nuclear reactors, as a result of its suicidal civil nuclear energy policy, to really mess up its own and neighbours’ day given a Chernobyl type incident and proportionally increasing the odds of it happening.
Creating similar long term widespread radiation pollution and effects as would be expected of a nuclear attack.
Together with the biomass industry this is the real and unacceptable, anything but green, face of the all electric ‘climate’ agenda nightmare.At 26p per kwh for the privilege.

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

32

Lucid deliveries start 2moro, 30th Oct.
.
500 mile range. Over 200mph.
(Not at the same time!)
20 min to recharge for 300 miles.
.
Base price $70,000.
.

33

And the new Panasonic battery for Tesla.
independent.co.uk/life-styl … 46866.html
.

34

Franglais:
Lucid deliveries start 2moro, 30th Oct.
.
500 mile range. Over 200mph.
(Not at the same time!)
20 min to recharge for 300 miles.
.
Base price $70,000.
.

The trouble with quoted ranges is that they are in perfect lab conditions.

I looked at a DS… (Not to buy… I wouldn’t be given an EV until the tech matches that of ICE) Just curious…

It claims a 300 mile range. However, when you actually input real world conditions into the calculator (low UK temperature not 20 degrees plus, a 70 mph cruising speed) that range drops to less than 100 miles. Factor in 2 or 3 passengers and you’re looking at 80 miles. Which means 50 miles into your journey you’re getting “squeaky bum” syndrome on whether you can actually find somewhere to charge it.

At that rate, you’ll spend more time looking for chargers than actually driving where you want to go.

Sadly, until the claims are 800 miles plus which may then give a realistic real world range, they’re not for me. And in a car costing a reasonable amount - not top of the range Jaguar money.

As an addendum, I filled my diesel up yesterday. I had 29 miles to empty. Less than 2 mins later I had a tange of 700 miles. Real world range, not pie in the sky like the quoted EV ranges.

That’s the kind of matching tech required. I do not want to spend all my time waiting for a car to charge up - along with the initial issue of trying to find a charger not already in use, which is going to be a huge problem. Not to mention the problem of finding £50k to buy one…

I should add that in principle I think electric motors are a brilliant way to power cars. But there’s a reason it hasn’t already happened. And that reason is we dont have the tech as yet to store enough electricity to make it work. The irony is of course that electricity isnt green either. Saying its greener than fossil fuels may be true to an extent (depends in the generation). But, it’s a bit like saying a broken arm is better than a broken leg…

Once everyone has spent a fortune “upgrading” to electric - the next announcement will be “oh… It isn"t as green as we first thought”. And the next money making scam will be along shortly…

The scientists making these claims about fuels and the environment have changed their minds more times than a teenage girl with a prom. dress purchase… These were the same folk that told us just a few short years ago how much better diesels were for example…

What a money making circus it is. And the best way of forcing people to accept it is to make them afraid of something they can’t see or easily disprove…

A New Religion for the 21st century!

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

35

Franglais:
Lucid deliveries start 2moro, 30th Oct.
.
500 mile range. Over 200mph.
(Not at the same time!)
20 min to recharge for 300 miles.
.
Base price $70,000.
.

At the cost of 26p per kwh + road fuel duty and 20% VAT assuming that you don’t want pensioners to subsidise the electricity costs of Tesla owners and a bit left over for the NHS.
Also turning the country into a treeless irradiated dustbowl for the privilege.
So how many kwh will it need of nuke or tree fuelled electric for that 500 miles and lets call it 145 mph overnight on the Autoroute when the Gendarmerie are at home eating cheese and drinking wine and sleeping.
Or for a few hundred miles run in a cold wet UK at any speed with the heater and demister at full blast and headlights required all the way day or night.

36

Franglais:
And the new Panasonic battery for Tesla.
independent.co.uk/life-styl … 46866.html
.

Tesla’s been on a buying spree lately to secure their supplies, They have been in talks with BYD to buy BYD’s own ‘Blade’ batteries & this week have rumoured to have ordered 45Gwh’s of CATL batteries enough to make 800.000 ev’s. :open_mouth:

They’ve also struck a deal to buy 42000 tonnes of nickel from the mining group BHP. Laggard ICE car manufacturers are going to be in $**T creek without a paddle soon if they don’t get a meaningful supply line sorted out soon.
Tesla are in the free money again with JLR & Honda who both have to pool with Tesla over failing to meet their 2020 fleet emission limits, JLR will have to pay Tesla around €50million :open_mouth:
There’s more bad news for Jaguar too as two of their i-pace ev’s have caught fire recently & their battery packs were made by LG Chem who made the battery packs for the GM Bolt ev which every model from 2017 will have to have the battery packs replaced because of a bad manufacturing process which led to fires, It will cost LG Chem $billions. There are signs in car parks across the US stating no GM Bolt ev’s are allowed to park because of the battery packs catching fire. :open_mouth: insideevs.com/news/544255/jagua … e-hungary/

37

People often mention range, understandably, but fact is most people really don’t actually go far. See so many complain of range when all they do is 5/10/20/30 miles commute daily and could plug in overnight. Not saying that’s you Truckulent, but for vast majority range doesnt matter despite those same people thinking it’s everything when I’m reality they often only do 2/3 long trips a year

Same goes to all comments Volvo Electric posts get. Many seem to think every truck is doing 700/800km a day. Fact is even this early stage there are a huge amount of applications they can be used for.

38

switchlogic:
People often mention range, understandably, but fact is most people really don’t actually go far. See so many complain of range when all they do is 5/10/20/30 miles commute daily and could plug in overnight. Not saying that’s you Truckulent, but for vast majority range doesnt matter despite those same people thinking it’s everything when I’m reality they often only do 2/3 long trips a year

Same goes to all comments Volvo Electric posts get. Many seem to think every truck is doing 700/800km a day. Fact is even this early stage there are a huge amount of applications they can be used for.

The trouble is Luke I do. And millions of others do too. So what do we do?

The “you need a break anyway” argument wont wash. If I stop for a break I do not want the time stationary dictated to me by inadequacies in the vehicle I’m driving. Enforced delays to a journey are not conducive to relaxed motoring. Ask anyone that’s been stuck in traffic.

And that’s before we get onto the “the charging point isnt free” yet.

I have a friend that spent 35k on an EV.

He recently visited his family in the south east. The return journey too almost 9 hours due to waiting for chargers to be available and the actual charging. He observed he might get shares in coffee shops…I observed he’d be better with a vehicle that actually has the technology and infrastructure to operate efficiently. That same journey in my diesel would have been easily less than 4.5 hours.

I’m sure EVs will improve. But the day they can seamlessly replace IC is not even on the horizon as yet.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

39

switchlogic:
People often mention range, understandably, but fact is most people really don’t actually go far. See so many complain of range when all they do is 5/10/20/30 miles commute daily and could plug in overnight. Not saying that’s you Truckulent, but for vast majority range doesnt matter despite those same people thinking it’s everything when I’m reality they often only do 2/3 long trips a year

Same goes to all comments Volvo Electric posts get. Many seem to think every truck is doing 700/800km a day. Fact is even this early stage there are a huge amount of applications they can be used for.

Says the person who can’t afford to buy an EV let alone run it without ripping off pensioners and the NHS in subsidised electricity.
There are plenty of people who like to do long day trips in the Summer months often a lot more than 200 miles round trip and 2/3 ‘per year’ plus maybe two or three continental road trips, also some towing caravans and some using motorhomes.
So why do you think that Kahn didn’t make the ULEZ all electric or nothing.
The truth is it would crash the housing markets and with it the economy inside the Norf and Saf circulars.
Bonus points if he went full Greta in every London Borough.
While since when were captive market monopolies good for the consumer.

40

Truckulent:

switchlogic:
People often mention range, understandably, but fact is most people really don’t actually go far. See so many complain of range when all they do is 5/10/20/30 miles commute daily and could plug in overnight. Not saying that’s you Truckulent, but for vast majority range doesnt matter despite those same people thinking it’s everything when I’m reality they often only do 2/3 long trips a year

Same goes to all comments Volvo Electric posts get. Many seem to think every truck is doing 700/800km a day. Fact is even this early stage there are a huge amount of applications they can be used for.

The trouble is Luke I do. And millions of others do too. So what do we do?

The “you need a break anyway” argument wont wash. If I stop for a break I do not want the time stationary dictated to me by inadequacies in the vehicle I’m driving. Enforced delays to a journey are not conducive to relaxed motoring. Ask anyone that’s been stuck in traffic.

And that’s before we get onto the “the charging point isnt free” yet.

I have a friend that spent 35k on an EV.

He recently visited his family in the south east. The return journey too almost 9 hours due to waiting for chargers to be available and the actual charging. He observed he might get shares in coffee shops…I observed he’d be better with a vehicle that actually has the technology and infrastructure to operate efficiently. That same journey in my diesel would have been easily less than 4.5 hours.

I’m sure EVs will improve. But the day they can seamlessly replace IC is not even on the horizon as yet.

Even his devils advocate economics figures are as credible as the idea that CO2 cooked Venus.
12.5p per kwh while pensioners are paying 26p per kwh for their domestic electricity and the NHS is ripped off by all that lost fuel duty and 20% VAT.
How long does anyone think those loss leaders will last.

youtube.com/watch?v=CEyfCcAbtKU