Tony Blair

[JamesPa]

18 minutes ago, jack said:

 

Sure, that's [BEV with small ICE generator to charge it} another option.

 

So why do you think these aren't being produced/sold en masse if (as @ProDave suggests) there's such as big demand for a vehicle that can provide what they offer at the price they can offer it? 

At a guess because every serious EV manufacturer knows that range anxiety is becoming decreasingly important (and quite rapidly) as battery technology, charger availability and charger power (ie rate) evolves.  So why invest in developing something that is going to be obsolete in a very few years and detracts from the mainstream offering?

Edited Wednesday at 13:40 by JamesPa

[Onoff]

1 hour ago, Nickfromwales said:

Apparently @Onoff test fired the 6kw body drier, and sends his apologies.

 

6kw? Lightweight!

 

 

[Nickfromwales]

Defo guilty!!

[S2D2]

27 minutes ago, jack said:

 

Sure, that's another option.

 

So why do you think these aren't being produced/sold en masse if (as @ProDave suggests) there's such as big demand for a vehicle that can provide what they offer at the price they can offer it? 

They are available, e.g. https://www.mazda.co.uk/cars/mazda-mx-30-r-ev/

 

Now that the second hand market is flooded with EVs with over 250 miles of real world range, it's not an issue for most people anymore.

 

I took my 3 year old EV on a 600 mile round trip recently, absolutely no different to the old petrol car, stopped once each way at the same service station as always for a whopping ... 26 minutes. Newer cars will charge at least three times the speed of mine.

[jack]

1 minute ago, S2D2 said:

They are available, e.g. https://www.mazda.co.uk/cars/mazda-mx-30-r-ev/

 

I wasn't aware of that model, thanks. Still, my question was why such vehicles weren't selling en masse if there's such massive demand for a vehicle with such capabilities. I know plenty of people with BEVs and a few with more standard PHEVs/HEVs, but I don't know a single person who drives a car with a range extender.

 

That said, I completely agree with the rest of your reasoning. I've been a BEV driver for around five years and wouldn't go back. 

 

I can't comprehend the idea of worrying about what will happen in 10 or 20 years. The tech will be unrecognisable within 5 years imo.

 

34 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

At a guess because every serious EV manufacturer knows that range anxiety is becoming decreasingly important (and quite rapidly) as battery technology, charger availability and charger power (ie rate) evolves.  So why invest in developing something that is going to be obsolete in a very few years and detracts from the mainstream offering?

 

Good answer!

[SteamyTea]

All this nonsense about range anxiety.

How many people actually drive more than 200 miles in a day. Not many.

And as @S2D2 says, 600 miles is possible.

 

(I am an exception and frequently driven 600+miles in a day, a few times a month, and if I had the cash to hand would have a Model 3 LD over a BMW M5, the nearest competitor)

[Onoff]

3 hours ago, jack said:

Still, my question was why such vehicles weren't selling en masse if there's such massive demand for a vehicle with such capabilities.

 

Tax breaks on full EVs for company car drivers are far more attractive than for hybrids of any type?

[ProDave]

5 hours ago, jack said:

I wasn't aware of that model, thanks. Still, my question was why such vehicles weren't selling en masse if there's such massive demand for a vehicle with such capabilities. I know plenty of people with BEVs and a few with more standard PHEVs/HEVs, but I don't know a single person who drives a car with a range extender.

We were looking at 3-5 year old used cars.  Not a single one of anything like that was on offer.  So lack of used ones suggests not many buy them new.

[JamesP]

15 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

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?

The Blair headline yesterday was so out of character, dig a bit deeper and it is more control, more tax. It's a race to the bottom.

[Roger440]

On 30/04/2025 at 08:26, LA3222 said:

And how much carbon are we going to capture, how much will that cost the UK taxpayer and how much will that reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere given that the biggest polluters in the world don't care.

 

The West is on a crusade to hoover the atmosphere whilst our neighbours keep spewing ever more crap into. Absolutely pointless and crippling to the country.

 

Population of UK is about 1% of the world, our carbon emissions are also about 1%. They are spanking 20 billion on carbon capture to remove 'wet finger in air' between 20 to 30 million tonnes by 2030. In that time we will have emitted 1.7billion tonnes and globally the figure will be around 187 billion tonnes. So we are removing at best 0.01% of the CO2 generated.

 

If anyone can educate a retard like me as to why it makes sense to spank 20billion quid removing 0.01% of global carbon emissions across 5 years then by all means, I'm all ears.

 

Don't suggest it's worth it to develop new technology as even if we can somehow advance the technology by a magnitude of ten it still makes no sense. To advance it by 100 is fantasy land and absolutely none of the country's actually making big carbon emissions will be interested in wasting the kind of cash we are on this rubbish.

 

The big polluters like China are laughing at us. We cripple ourselves pursuing a net zero fantasy all while their emissions shoot up to offset our drop all whilst making an industry and getting rich by suppling all the net zero equipment to us.

 

This whole net zero fantasy will come home to roost in the next five to ten years and then we're snookered.

 

I thought is was obvious? Its just another transfer of money/wealth, from ordinary people to a select few, via the government.

 

Net zero takes this transfer of wealth to a whole new level, way beyond anything we have seen before.

 

The people benefitting dont give a monkeys about the planet, climate change or any of that stuff.

 

Assuming it goes ahead as planned (which i doubt), i do hope that those on here cheerleading the madness, look around in 10, 15, 20 years time, at what it will have done to society and the country, and think, yes, im so pleased i supported that. I cant wish that future on my fellow man. I couldnt even wish it on my enemies!

 

As Prodave said, life is for living. Not staying locked up at home to avoid creating emmisions.

[Roger440]

On 30/04/2025 at 10:09, BadgerBodger said:

Agreed. Compromises will be required. 
 

But incremental improvements combined with small changes in lifestyle/approach can make a huge difference. 
 

Sometimes there is very little compromise for the end user though, just look at concrete, still a major source of carbon emissions the production of cement has been improved so as to reduce carbon emissions by roughly 50% and development in concrete design by use of cement replacements such as GGBS mean that overall embodied carbon is reduced by nearly 30%. This is an averaged number and can be further reduced by use of recycled aggregates and increased GGBS in some applications. Proof that legislation, taxation and incentivisation works. 
 

This kind of approach cascades into developing worlds (eventually) through the realisation that it can and does save money in the long term. 

 

This is rubbish. To achieve net zero is going to require massive changes to the lifestyles of the average person. Those changes are not going to be popular at all. Especially the being poorer and lower standard of living bit. While the rest of the world laughs at us.

 

 

 

 

[JohnMo]

6 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Prodave said, life is for living. Not staying locked up at home to avoid creating emmisions

Yep.

 

Got a heat pump, but also got a 520hp twin turbo Alfa, was on my 2 stroke enduro motorbike today.

 

Yes net zero, should mean -

No overseas travel, little or no imported stuff, we all seem to live on,

 

10 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

cement has been improved so as to reduce carbon emissions by roughly 50%

No one states it has to be this, so nearly all isn't, it's the same stuff as a hundred years ago, so concrete; CO2 intensive to produce, gives of CO2 while going through the curing process. Etc etc... not net zero compatible really.

 

By no stretch is it going to be a few compromises.

[BadgerBodger]

@JohnMo I’m not sure you’re entirely correct on this point. The uk manufacturing process has been improved across the board and the average improvement is a 29% reduction in embodied carbon as an average in the placed product UK wide.

 

You’re right, not everyone uses the best, lowest carbon products, but some do, the project I am on now has used 3500m3+ of concrete. Wherever possible we have used GBBA cement replacement at the maximum potential (it’s actually cheaper and your concrete supplier will give you a mix design with this in as standard unless you ask for 100% OPC which most people don’t actually want because is has a short workability period and unless places and protected properly is prone to cracking) . 
 

Wherever possible we also used recycled aggregate and placed 16000m3 of crushed concrete in lieu of virgin crushed rocks. 

 

And this is not a government contract. 
 

This in part because many institutional clients WANT do to the right thing. They sign up to optional scheme like BREEAM which push sustainability above and beyond the mandated standards. 
 

It’s much akin to the much maligned Euro Rules many justified brexit on, not realising we as a country went above and beyond, often by choice. 
 

You might not realise it but it’s happening right in front of our eyes. Because… the system of taxation… incentivisation… works! 
 

Another example of this is EV. Uptake wouldn’t be so high if the sales hadn’t been subsidised in the way they were. And subsequently if infrastructure requirements hadn’t been pushed through the various routes (subsidisation, investment, planning etc) but for the most part I think we can again agree that the trajectory is by and large “in the right direction”. 
 

And yes, big compromises will be made  to “finish the job” but as ever you have to consider the pareto principle (80/20) rule. The premise of which is that inferred in this situation 80% of the gains will come from 20% of the effort. 
 

I think we’re still that 20% phase and importantly this trajectory is a 25 year plan and by that standard, the next 5 years will see the most gains with the least sacrifice. What happens next is anyone’s guess… 

 

 

 

 

[Roger440]

10 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Yep.

 

Got a heat pump, but also got a 520hp twin turbo Alfa, was on my 2 stroke enduro motorbike today.

 

Yes net zero, should mean -

No overseas travel, little or no imported stuff, we all seem to live on,

 

No one states it has to be this, so nearly all isn't, it's the same stuff as a hundred years ago, so concrete; CO2 intensive to produce, gives of CO2 while going through the curing process. Etc etc... not net zero compatible really.

 

By no stretch is it going to be a few compromises.

 

Cant do multiquote, but im not sure no overseas travel and no imported stuff isnt going to impinge significantly on peoles enjoyment of life? As i said, i dont wish that on my fellow man.

 

 

I didnt mean the "concrete" statement was rubbish. I meant the comment that major change to lifestyles isnt required.

[SteamyTea]

9 hours ago, Roger440 said:

I meant the comment that major change to lifestyles isnt required

Up until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I can't think that net zero was costing me anything extra.

While kWh prices may have increased, efficiency gains more than counteracted that. My last two cars have regularly used two thirds of the fuel that my cars from twenty years ago used, and they have been better cars. My laptop uses a tenth of the power that my old desktop used, and is more powerful, my house uses a third of the energy compared to when I moved in, with only minor changes to it.

I also pay less income tax than I used to in real terms i.e. less cash as the tax free allowance has increased and the lower rate has reduced.

 

I don't wear rose tinted glasses, though I had some 45 years ago (they were all the rage then).

[Mattg4321]

Glad you’re paying less tax, because I most certainly am not. At a quick guess I think the amount of tax I pay as a proportion of income has increased by getting on for 10%over the past 10 years  - and my earnings haven’t really changed a great deal, just gone up in line with inflation. Can’t say I’m feeling it’s VFM at the moment. Considering moving abroad, but where!?
 

 

[Mattg4321]

On 02/05/2025 at 08:13, BadgerBodger said:

@JohnMo I’m not sure you’re entirely correct on this point. The uk manufacturing process has been improved across the board and the average improvement is a 29% reduction in embodied carbon as an average in the placed product UK wide.

 

You’re right, not everyone uses the best, lowest carbon products, but some do, the project I am on now has used 3500m3+ of concrete. Wherever possible we have used GBBA cement replacement at the maximum potential (it’s actually cheaper and your concrete supplier will give you a mix design with this in as standard unless you ask for 100% OPC which most people don’t actually want because is has a short workability period and unless places and protected properly is prone to cracking) . 
 

Wherever possible we also used recycled aggregate and placed 16000m3 of crushed concrete in lieu of virgin crushed rocks. 

 

And this is not a government contract. 
 

This in part because many institutional clients WANT do to the right thing. They sign up to optional scheme like BREEAM which push sustainability above and beyond the mandated standards. 
 

It’s much akin to the much maligned Euro Rules many justified brexit on, not realising we as a country went above and beyond, often by choice. 
 

You might not realise it but it’s happening right in front of our eyes. Because… the system of taxation… incentivisation… works! 
 

Another example of this is EV. Uptake wouldn’t be so high if the sales hadn’t been subsidised in the way they were. And subsequently if infrastructure requirements hadn’t been pushed through the various routes (subsidisation, investment, planning etc) but for the most part I think we can again agree that the trajectory is by and large “in the right direction”. 
 

And yes, big compromises will be made  to “finish the job” but as ever you have to consider the pareto principle (80/20) rule. The premise of which is that inferred in this situation 80% of the gains will come from 20% of the effort. 
 

I think we’re still that 20% phase and importantly this trajectory is a 25 year plan and by that standard, the next 5 years will see the most gains with the least sacrifice. What happens next is anyone’s guess… 

 

 

 

 

Surely if this client was a true believer in net zero they would’ve either just not built, or built vastly vastly smaller. In line with living in a property with 60m2 floor area for 2 people perhaps. 
 

But no, the elite/super rich want to carry on with their existing lifestyles, whilst us plebs have to go back to the Stone Age. They’ll pay extra to ‘greenwash’ whilst we go without. 

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, Mattg4321 said:

whilst us plebs have to go back to the Stone Age.

But a stone age with cheap, safe food, education, health care, societal safety nets, justice systems, integrated personal transport, public entertainment, very cheap communication....

The world gets better every day.

It is too easy to take one personal example and assume that it must also apply to everyone else.  Personally I am quite happy that part of my local taxes goes in housing the homeless, I don't want to walk up Market Jew Street and see a dead body in a shop doorway again.

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Mattg4321 said:

At a quick guess I think the amount of tax I pay as a proportion of income has increased by getting on for 10%over the past 10 years.

 

Considering moving abroad, but where!?

If you can afford to move abroad, you obviously can afford the tax.

 

We should be more like USA, if you hold their passport, you are due their taxes, wherever you live in the world.

[SteamyTea]

13 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

We should be more like USA, if you hold their passport, you are due their taxes, wherever you live in the world

Live and earn, and regardless of how you earn.

 

'The last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism' S. Johnson, 1774

[BotusBuild]

On 30/04/2025 at 13:12, jack said:

You'd end up with the full weight and cost of an entire ICE drivetrain and fuel, coupled with the full weight and cost of a long-range BEV drivetrain and batteries, plus whatever's needed to integrate them. Something like that would be extremely heavy

And difficult to stop. There is a version the Kia Niro like this and they didn't update the brakes (enough). The Howdens rep says he has to be very careful driving in the country lanes

[SteamyTea]

Just now, BotusBuild said:

There is a version the Kia Niro like this and they didn't update the brakes (enough).

My Peugeot 309 TD was the same, major fade after 30 metres, then smoke.

[BotusBuild]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

major fade after 30 metres, then smoke.

That happens when travelling at 90 at meeting tractor 🤣

 

Othe things happen to the driver as well 😂

Edited Saturday at 09:49 by BotusBuild

[BadgerBodger]

2 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

Surely if this client was a true believer in net zero they would’ve either just not built, or built vastly vastly smaller. In line with living in a property with 60m2 floor area for 2 people perhaps. 
 

But no, the elite/super rich want to carry on with their existing lifestyles, whilst us plebs have to go back to the Stone Age. They’ll pay extra to ‘greenwash’ whilst we go without. 

Yeah, this client is not domestic but energy infrastructure. It’s not a case of want, more need. And the need is ours and their desire to make money. 
 

 

[Mattg4321]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

If you can afford to move abroad, you obviously can afford the tax.

 

We should be more like USA, if you hold their passport, you are due their taxes, wherever you live in the world.

Bizarre thing to say. A mate of mine has just moved to Oz. Guess his wealth was/is less than £100k as he didn’t buy property young enough. He has skills that they want - that I also do - and his standard of living will be higher most likely than it is here. The cost to move abroad is low if you have useful skills. 
 

Being able to afford the tax isn’t relevant if you don’t feel like you get VFM. The health service for example in this country is diabolical unless you’re talking about private or urgent care. 
 

It would be fairly easy to just give up the passport and just because you have a US passport and have to complete a tax return doesn’t necessarily mean you actually pay them any tax. 

Edited Saturday at 11:08 by Mattg4321