Tony Blair

[nod]

Sparked by the above comments today LBC new had a guest on A Green energy scientist and self confessed Green activist 

I was surprised that there guest conceded that Heat pumps will always be more expensive to run while electricity is nearly four times the price of gas and tracks the price of gas 

Also when asked why we can’t manufacture our own PV panels Rather than bringing them in from China She simply answered that Solar panels are made from Fidel fuels and we have targets to reduce Fossil fuels 

While China hasn’t 

So PV isn’t exactly saving the planet 

 

Quite refreshing to get honest answers and more likely to convert the skeptics

[SteamyTea]

15 minutes ago, nod said:

Solar panels are made from Fidel fuels and we have targets to reduce Fossil fuels 

While China hasn’t 

So PV isn’t exactly saving the planet 

But going a long way towards reducing overall CO₂ reductions.

 

The same argument is used about wind turbines and the amount of steel, plastic and cement is needed to build them.

And EVs using more energy to be produced than an ICE vehicle.

 

If environmental science was easy to understand, and had simple, binary, answers, then no one would have to study it at university.

 

Maybe this will give some perspective.

 

1972

 

2022

Edited April 29 by SteamyTea

[MikeSharp01]

Our solar panels have been on the build roof 1 month, admit its been a good month, and we have exported 1133.2kWh at £0.15 or £169.98 which pays the electric bill on both properties, and some, so I love solar - not so much the seagulls who deposit excrement that reduces our output! It will be fun to find out if it was the renewables that tripped the Spanish / Portuguese & a bit of Frances grid yesterday though. 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Our solar panels have been on the build roof 1 month, admit its been a good month, and we have exported 1133.2kWh

Do you know how much they have generated?

You can work out the embodied energy/CO₂ payback time.

 

Whenever I hear someone spouting on about renewables never paying back the amount of energy they take to make, I usually retort with 'why are they so cheap to buy then'.

[nod]

I’ve a friend who continually rubs me over having decal diesel vehicles 

The four vans I can’t do anything about But we really could should change our cars to at least hybrids 

 

He’s two EV vehicles One is a brand new Range Rover 

BUT and a big BUT HES OFF TO Dubai for the the third time since December 

I really don’t think he sees the irony that I’m doing more for the environment than he is By staying in Blighty for two years Stuck building a house 😂

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, nod said:

BUT and a big BUT HES OFF TO Dubai for the the third time since December

That will be in the region of 6 tonnes of CO₂.

 

My car is about 180gm CO₂/ mile.

Last year I drove 30k miles in it.

So about 5.5 tonnes.

Pretty similar.

 

[ProDave]

Fred drift perhaps be we are changing SWMBO's car.  Presently she has a hybrid, but not plug in.

 

We can't consider an EV as there is a regular monthly journey of 300 miles each way and we cannot pallet the idea of having to stop half an hour or more for a recharge and then having to plug in at the house you are visiting to charge.

 

We thought a plug in hybrid would be a good idea.  A car that on our local journeys would function as an EV but not have the range limitation of an EV.  We were disappointed to find the pure EV range of most PHEV's is a pathetic 20 to 40 miles.  That won't do many of our local journeys so not worth the extra purchase cost for what would be a very small saving in both cost and emissions.

 

So sadly we are buying another simple hybrid.

 

There seems to be a huge disconnect between what the customer wants and what would be a practical way to reduce emissions,and what is actually available or "they" would like you to buy.

 

And it seems from our discussions recently with car salesmen, most people feel the same which is why EV sales are falling short of the targets they have set.  You cannot force people to buy a product that does not meet the requirements of the user.

[nod]

29 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Fred drift perhaps be we are changing SWMBO's car.  Presently she has a hybrid, but not plug in.

 

We can't consider an EV as there is a regular monthly journey of 300 miles each way and we cannot pallet the idea of having to stop half an hour or more for a recharge and then having to plug in at the house you are visiting to charge.

 

We thought a plug in hybrid would be a good idea.  A car that on our local journeys would function as an EV but not have the range limitation of an EV.  We were disappointed to find the pure EV range of most PHEV's is a pathetic 20 to 40 miles.  That won't do many of our local journeys so not worth the extra purchase cost for what would be a very small saving in both cost and emissions.

 

So sadly we are buying another simple hybrid.

 

There seems to be a huge disconnect between what the customer wants and what would be a practical way to reduce emissions,and what is actually available or "they" would like you to buy.

 

And it seems from our discussions recently with car salesmen, most people feel the same which is why EV sales are falling short of the targets they have set.  You cannot force people to buy a product that does not meet the requirements of the user.

I think the technology will have to make a leap forward 

I was given a Transit Ev on loan for a week The range was low at about 120 miles In reality I found that 90 miles was more accurate and that was without a load and heating on 

I think fazing petrol vehicles and diesel vehicles out by 2030 will probably go the same way as gas boilers 

The sales target and penalties set by this government are ridiculous 

 

[SteamyTea]

47 minutes ago, ProDave said:

We thought a plug in hybrid would be a good idea.  A car that on our local journeys would function as an EV but not have the range limitation of an EV.  We were disappointed to find the pure EV range of most PHEV's is a pathetic 20 to 40 miles.  That won't do many of our local journeys so not worth the extra purchase cost for what would be a very small saving in both cost and emissions.

Have you worked out the yearly CO₂ emissions and the yearly running costs.  That is what would make a difference to me.

14 minutes ago, nod said:

think the technology will have to make a leap forward 

All technology suffers from that.

But if you look at the improvements in vehicles over the last 40 years (Allegro to Polo say), the improvements have been incremental, nothing drastic.

But in the last decade, you really can't ask for more improvements.

 

https://rmi.org/the-rise-of-batteries-in-six-charts-and-not-too-many-numbers/

[Redbeard]

Sorry, I've been trying to find 'Fred Drift''s comment. @ProDave, are you using voice activated posting?! Sorry again!

[Mattg4321]

1 hour ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Our solar panels have been on the build roof 1 month, admit its been a good month, and we have exported 1133.2kWh at £0.15 or £169.98 which pays the electric bill on both properties, and some, so I love solar - not so much the seagulls who deposit excrement that reduces our output! It will be fun to find out if it was the renewables that tripped the Spanish / Portuguese & a bit of Frances grid yesterday though. 

Almost certainly it was from what I've been reading. Another reason why you can't phase out fossil fuels. Even B.Liar is now agreeing with that, he can obviously sense more quickly than the fools Starmer and Miliband that the public are starting to get pretty fed up with their hard earned being wasted in pursuit of a pipe dream.

[SteamyTea]

9 minutes ago, Mattg4321 said:

Even B.Liar is now agreeing with that

A man well known for his science/technical background and never saying what people want to hear.

 

 

[LA3222]

Carbon capture. Now there's a turd if ever I've seen one. How many billions of UK taxpayers money is being pumped into that particular snake oil. When the UK contributes so little to global emissions and we are spending billions on this nonsense whilst education goes down the pan, dentists are rarer than hens teeth, getting a GP appointment is a lottery and don't even bother going to A&E.

There are so many more pressing issues in this country affecting our day to day lives which can be improved rather than zealously pursuing a net zero agenda that is financially crippling and makes little difference when the big polluters don't give two sh*ts. I despair for the UK.

 

Not to mention the fact that offshoring all of our industry and importing everything we need seems counter intuitive in the drive to reduce fossil fuel use. Its the same as this 'I've flown on an international flight so I'll pay to plant a couple of trees to offset my emissions"....yeah brill. 

 

 

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

All technology suffers from that.

But if you look at the improvements in vehicles over the last 40 years (Allegro to Polo say), the improvements have been incremental, nothing drastic.

But in the last decade, you really can't ask for more improvements.

Which is what I have said before.  EV's may be the future, but they are not the present solution.  Not for me at least and I am sure not for the majority of us.  Perhaps in 10 years?  I don't want to be the early adopter buying a sub standard in development product and paying the price for it.

[Mattg4321]

7 minutes ago, LA3222 said:

Carbon capture. Now there's a turd if ever I've seen one. How many billions of UK taxpayers money is being pumped into that particular snake oil. When the UK contributes so little to global emissions and we are spending billions on this nonsense whilst education goes down the pan, dentists are rarer than hens teeth, getting a GP appointment is a lottery and don't even bother going to A&E.

There are so many more pressing issues in this country affecting our day to day lives which can be improved rather than zealously pursuing a net zero agenda that is financially crippling and makes little difference when the big polluters don't give two sh*ts. I despair for the UK.

 

Not to mention the fact that offshoring all of our industry and importing everything we need seems counter intuitive in the drive to reduce fossil fuel use. Its the same as this 'I've flown on an international flight so I'll pay to plant a couple of trees to offset my emissions"....yeah brill. 

 

 

Totally agree. A load of utter nonsense. I’m not sure if I’ve been had on this one, but it seems to be fairly well reported that the morons in charge are spending £50M of our money doing experiments trying to ‘dim the sun’. If true then wtf is going on. Got to be some sort of corruption going on there.

[LA3222]

Just now, Mattg4321 said:

Totally agree. A load of utter nonsense. I’m not sure if I’ve been had on this one, but it seems to be fairly well reported that the morons in charge are spending £50M of our money doing experiments trying to ‘dim the sun’. If true then wtf is going on. Got to be some sort of corruption going on there.

Yeah I heard the sun dimming one, shill PV then turn the lights off with cloud seeding. Absolute jokers.

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, ProDave said:

am sure not for the majority of us

The majority of people lease purchase, and only do a handful of thousand miles a year, usually very short, urban journeys as well.

These are the people that EVs are aimed at, not the isolated rural dwellers or the high milage people.

It really is not a technical problem anymore.

11 minutes ago, Mattg4321 said:

I’m not sure if I’ve been had on this one, but it seems to be fairly well reported that the morons in charge are spending £50M of our money doing experiments trying to ‘dim the sun’.

You got a link to that, or is it just an academic study (been reported in for over a decade).

Cleaning up ships emissions has increased solar forcings, and raised global temperature (as has China's improved air quality), but it is not a conspiracy, con, or anything nasty, just a side effect of better technology.

[ProDave]

10 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

The majority of people lease purchase, and only do a handful of thousand miles a year, usually very short, urban journeys as well.

These are the people that EVs are aimed at, not the isolated rural dwellers or the high milage people.

It really is not a technical problem anymore.

Yes, and for the time being we rural and high mileage drivers can continue doing that.  But as the thread title TB recognises the current plan is not going to work.  What are people like me supposed to do in 10 years?  20 years?  when ICE cars have been banned from sale and the old ones are at old banger stage? 

 

We need a plan that stands a chance of actually working before people will get on board and support it.

[Roger440]

9 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Yes, and for the time being we rural and high mileage drivers can continue doing that.  But as the thread title TB recognises the current plan is not going to work.  What are people like me supposed to do in 10 years?  20 years?  when ICE cars have been banned from sale and the old ones are at old banger stage? 

 

We need a plan that stands a chance of actually working before people will get on board and support it.

 

I think its worth pointing out that "rural living" is now considered "unsustainable", at least in England and Wales, so i cant imagine our glorious leaders will concern them selves too much about the fate of rural dwellers. In numerical terms, we count for nothng when it comes to votes. 

 

Make your own arrangements i suspect is the answer in reality.  Thats what im doing. I hoping to make it to the end of my driving life, or death, whichever comes sooner, without having to resort to some sort of EV that i cant maintain myself. Maybe some miracle will occur such that they become useful, but i rather doubt it.

 

Anyway, Ed will bleed you dry of cash, so you wont be able to afford to eat, never mind buy a new car!

[JamesP]

2 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

 Even B.Liar is now agreeing with that, he can obviously sense more quickly than the fools Starmer and Miliband that the public are starting to get pretty fed up with their hard earned being wasted in pursuit of a pipe dream.

Comment from David Fleming below : 

At first glance, it appears to be a critique of current Net Zero policies — admitting they’re economically toxic, politically unpopular, and practically unworkable.

But on closer reading, it reveals something much more significant:

a polished blueprint for a global technocratic control system, built in the name of solving climate change through data, automation, and artificial intelligence.

 

 

https://institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/the-climate-paradox-why-we-need-to-reset-action-on-climate-change

Edited April 29 by JamesP
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=1882315&post_id=162493903&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2pd408&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNjM1MzQ0NzIsInBvc3RfaWQiOjE2MjQ5MzkwMywiaWF0IjoxNzQ1OTY0MTM3LCJleHAiOjE3ND

[Mattg4321]

8 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

The majority of people lease purchase, and only do a handful of thousand miles a year, usually very short, urban journeys as well.

These are the people that EVs are aimed at, not the isolated rural dwellers or the high milage people.

It really is not a technical problem anymore.

You got a link to that, or is it just an academic study (been reported in for over a decade).

Cleaning up ships emissions has increased solar forcings, and raised global temperature (as has China's improved air quality), but it is not a conspiracy, con, or anything nasty, just a side effect of better technology.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/uk-scientists-outdoor-geoengineering-experiments

[Mattg4321]

6 hours ago, JamesP said:

Comment from David Fleming below : 

At first glance, it appears to be a critique of current Net Zero policies — admitting they’re economically toxic, politically unpopular, and practically unworkable.

But on closer reading, it reveals something much more significant:

a polished blueprint for a global technocratic control system, built in the name of solving climate change through data, automation, and artificial intelligence.

 

 

https://institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/the-climate-paradox-why-we-need-to-reset-action-on-climate-change

Along with abolishing cash, handing over powers to the corrupt WHO etc etc. 

 

What government in any civilisation in history has ever been found to be absolutely trustworthy and working in the best interests of the people it serves (or probably more accurately, lords it over). Why should we trust ours and how long before we all say enough is enough with the slow erosion of our liberties?

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, Mattg4321 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/uk-scientists-outdoor-geoengineering-experiments

So they are not actually doing it, it is being planned.

Quite different from

8 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

doing experiments

 

[G and J]

@Redbeard Fred Drift is my friend, rambling fool that he is, but I learn so much as a result…

 

As for range anxiety for cars, we would suffer from that.

 

But then, before I bought one I worried about a cordless drill running out of battery before I’d finished whatever job.

 

One ’Light Bulb!’ Moment later, I realised I could swap to a second battery.  How about if they build a big version of my Makita 18V battery and design lots of vehicles to take them.  Then we could lease the batteries and do an automated swap in service stations.  Instant recharge.  Just a thought.  

[Mattg4321]

Think you’re being a bit pedantic. 
 

If the Guardian is to be believed - a bit of a stretch I know - then there doesn’t seem to be any question of whether the experiments will be going ahead. 
 

Many are convinced they have been happening for years already, I’m not sure about that particular ‘conspiracy theory’ to be honest, although I was also wrong about certain other ‘experiments’ that went badly wrong in Wuhan.