What a dreadful piece of naked propaganda from Mr Meeks.
Compares leaving a protectionist trade cartel to a World War.
No betting implications- has this site given up on betting ?
It's like the Guardian without the laughs.
Not a great deal to bet on at the moment, now that Jezza is safe for years and Tezza is safe until, well, September.
Impeachment of Trump seems to be the most live bet at the moment, although I guess German elections will be coming into the horizon shortly.
Trump seems to be able to do whatever he wants. The checks and balances that are supposed to exist in the US system are clearly not as strong as was thought. He has a supine Congress, a majority in the Supreme Court and is now looking to manufacture a fraudulent voting narrative that will enable him to deny millions the opportunity to go cast ballots. The US is going on a very dark journey. I cannot see it ending well.
Charging times are coming down all the time. Already you can get 150 miles of range in 20 minutes through Tesla superchargers, and that's due to double when the new iteration is released next year.
150 miles is surely enough for most households already? I would have thought most households drive less than 50 miles per day...
Something I have always wondered: do all-electric cars still have a normal 12v car battery as well?
The 12V battery maintains power for critical systems when the main battery pack is damaged or disabled. It powers the hazard lights, airbags, door locking and unlocking operations, as well as other critical componets of the Model S. The 12V battery also ensures that electronics are “awake” and listening to the key FOB in order to automatically lock and unlock the vehicle based on proximity. It also allows the car to maintain its 3G connection for remote access when the rest of the vehicle is powered off. If the 12V battery happens to fail, it will isolate the main battery pack from the car and prevent charging. This is a safety feature of the Model S designed to help protect first responders in the event of an accident.
Yep, I meant hybrids, obviously. But my points still stand.
You're praying at the altar of tech that's not there yet. That's dangerous, and you have to plan for potential failure as well as success.
I am not praying at any bloody altar, I do not say that electric cars will solve everything or indeed anything, because unlike the dimmer warmist dweebs I realise that the future is unknowable. Having said that, if it weren't for the timescale I would bet a substantial amount that there will not be petrol/diesel engined cars in the first world in 2040. Technology develops when the financial incentive is there, economies of scale are a thing, early adopter premiums are not a thing after the early adopters have all adopted, and if we can find £n * 100bns for HS2 we can afford a bob or two to upgrade the supply network.
Charging times are coming down all the time. Already you can get 150 miles of range in 20 minutes through Tesla superchargers, and that's due to double when the new iteration is released next year.
150 miles is surely enough for most households already? I would have thought most households drive less than 50 miles per day...
Supposing that on the spur of the moment I fancy a drive out to the coast, round trip 200 miles. No charging point at the dog friendly beach I go to. What then?
Charging times are coming down all the time. Already you can get 150 miles of range in 20 minutes through Tesla superchargers, and that's due to double when the new iteration is released next year.
150 miles is surely enough for most households already? I would have thought most households drive less than 50 miles per day...
Supposing that on the spur of the moment I fancy a drive out to the coast, round trip 200 miles. No charging point at the dog friendly beach I go to. What then?
You can't do it unless there is a charging point on the way. But do you really need that ability and are you prepared to pay more for it?
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.
Or they didn't actually read the papers. To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
Presumably they had more than one researcher! You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.
Electric cars are an obvious way forward but I would not underestimate the infrastructure cost of providing adequate charging points. Charging also takes a lot longer than filling a tank so there will be a significant inconvenience factor.
But oil is far too valuable to just burn, particulates are killing far too many people and it will do a lot to improve the quality of life in urban areas. It will just be much more expensive than is being suggested.
Charging times are coming down all the time. Already you can get 150 miles of range in 20 minutes through Tesla superchargers, and that's due to double when the new iteration is released next year.
Is that 150 mile range under normal driving conditions or at a pedestrian 56 mph? I would imagine that hard accelaration and/or high speed would dramatically reduce the 150 mile range.
We'll be having driverless cars at that point, so fixed accelerations and no speeding.
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.
Or they didn't actually read the papers. To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
Presumably they had more than one researcher! You probably don't have to read all the paper either...
Quick response from the government, we haven't even had a new thread and they have already taken up my suggestion that phasing out fossil fuel cars is the way forward on AGW. I am delighted, even given the cynicism in the move - if Volvo will not be making them after 2020, demand for them in 2040 will be on a par with the demand for 1.4mb floppy discs. Dem market forces at work again.
Electric cars are an obvious way forward but I would not underestimate the infrastructure cost of providing adequate charging points. Charging also takes a lot longer than filling a tank so there will be a significant inconvenience factor.
But oil is far too valuable to just burn, particulates are killing far too many people and it will do a lot to improve the quality of life in urban areas. It will just be much more expensive than is being suggested.
There are also problems with range and cost. Range may increase, and cost come down, but it's quite difficult. Time to invest in rare earths, perhaps?
There will also be negative and positive effects on the power grid that will need to be considered.
2040 is far enough in the future that it concentrates mind without harming the immediate economy one bit.
Yes, if the future is going to be electric cars then we need to get building power stations!
@SouthamObserver also makes a good point about fuel and road taxes, which generate far for than the government spends on roads. If we all move to electric cars tomorrow it's something like a £50bn hole in the Exchequer's wallet.
On the plus side, the existence of all that distributed storage will make it easier to increase the proportion of intermittent sources of renewable energy.
Yes. In the US, Tesla also sell a battery for your house, which is useful if you've got solar panels or a windmill on the roof. It can charge the car overnight, or just release its power for domestic use as desired. They're also about to test a large scale version of a battery farm in Australia, where brownouts are commonplace.
Charging times are coming down all the time. Already you can get 150 miles of range in 20 minutes through Tesla superchargers, and that's due to double when the new iteration is released next year.
150 miles is surely enough for most households already? I would have thought most households drive less than 50 miles per day...
Supposing that on the spur of the moment I fancy a drive out to the coast, round trip 200 miles. No charging point at the dog friendly beach I go to. What then?
You will make a rational decision as to whether it makes sense for you to switch to electric, and you will stick with a hybrid until it does so? In the earlier days of ICE motoring there were half a dozen chemist shops in the whioe country selling petrol, and the average mileage between flat tyres was in single figures because of 100s of years worth of horseshoe nails on the roads. Yet here we are today.
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.
Or they didn't actually read the papers. To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You can read an abstract of a paper in seconds if you know what you are looking for.
So the Tories killed the motorcar. Wonder how that will play out politically.
Where Macron leads the Tories follow.
It's a good idea, though. A huge incentive to innovate. We may get there a lot sooner than 2040.
Not if we don't scrap the Climate change Act. We won't be making the electricity necessary for any form of mass transport at all. If things don't change significantly, life outside the city will be very different Indeed, with very little personal freedom to travel
The flaws in the Cook paper are myriad. David Legates, former head of University of Delaware Climate Research Centre went back through the 11,944 papers that Cook had used (although Cook only looked at the abstracts) and found that only 41 of those papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW. That is 0.3% of the total number of papers Cook looked at. He is as much a fraud as you are.
How is it possible that two people could read almost 12,000 papers and have such a ludicrous divergence of views on whether they say one thing or another? Only through utter dishonesty on one or both sides.
Or they didn't actually read the papers. To do so, allowing 10 minutes a paper,and reading uninterrupted for eight hours a day, would take almost a year. I'm skeptical.
You can read an abstract of a paper in seconds if you know what you are looking for.
Microseconds if your computer is searching online abstracts for particular terms or phrases.
Yep, I meant hybrids, obviously. But my points still stand.
You're praying at the altar of tech that's not there yet. That's dangerous, and you have to plan for potential failure as well as success.
I am not praying at any bloody altar, I do not say that electric cars will solve everything or indeed anything, because unlike the dimmer warmist dweebs I realise that the future is unknowable. Having said that, if it weren't for the timescale I would bet a substantial amount that there will not be petrol/diesel engined cars in the first world in 2040. Technology develops when the financial incentive is there, economies of scale are a thing, early adopter premiums are not a thing after the early adopters have all adopted, and if we can find £n * 100bns for HS2 we can afford a bob or two to upgrade the supply network.
More strawmen. Nobody is claiming that the future is knowable. It is, however, predictable to a certain extent, and it makes good sense to make policy on the basis of evidence-based predictions.
Something I have always wondered: do all-electric cars still have a normal 12v car battery as well?
The 12V battery maintains power for critical systems when the main battery pack is damaged or disabled. It powers the hazard lights, airbags, door locking and unlocking operations, as well as other critical componets of the Model S. The 12V battery also ensures that electronics are “awake” and listening to the key FOB in order to automatically lock and unlock the vehicle based on proximity. It also allows the car to maintain its 3G connection for remote access when the rest of the vehicle is powered off. If the 12V battery happens to fail, it will isolate the main battery pack from the car and prevent charging. This is a safety feature of the Model S designed to help protect first responders in the event of an accident.
I've no idea if it's an old-style lead-acid battery or a lithium one.
It's a lithium one.
So it will retain charge longer than a standard 12v acid battery? If the car is sat idle on the drive I mean, as mine is for sometimes a week or two.
The Tesla system is very complicated, but basically it will wake up the big battery and use that to keep the small one topped up if required.
McLaren and Porsche also use lithium 12v batteries in their sports cars (as they save a lot of weight over a lead acid one) and they will generally be happy left for 4-6 weeks, although they do supply a trickle charger for when storing the car.
Yep, I meant hybrids, obviously. But my points still stand.
You're praying at the altar of tech that's not there yet. That's dangerous, and you have to plan for potential failure as well as success.
I am not praying at any bloody altar, I do not say that electric cars will solve everything or indeed anything, because unlike the dimmer warmist dweebs I realise that the future is unknowable. Having said that, if it weren't for the timescale I would bet a substantial amount that there will not be petrol/diesel engined cars in the first world in 2040. Technology develops when the financial incentive is there, economies of scale are a thing, early adopter premiums are not a thing after the early adopters have all adopted, and if we can find £n * 100bns for HS2 we can afford a bob or two to upgrade the supply network.
The fact that you claim £100 billion for HS2 shows you are as dependent on alarmist material as the AGW 'warmist dweebs' you decry.
"I would bet a substantial amount that there will not be petrol/diesel engined cars in the first world in 2040. "
You might be right, but the tech isn't there yet. We have a Honda Jazz, and there are loads of them about in our area. They start at £13,000 and offer 300-400 miles range. That's the market they need to get to, and that's difficult with current battery tech. And the Jazz is hardly the cheapest car. If this is going to happen, it cannot disenfranchise poorer segments of society from car ownership, where they can own one atm.
Although automated cars *may*, if they develop as fast as some suppose, utterly change travel patters, yet alone the car ownership market.
One thing we might agree on: if the government are keen for this, then there should be a regulation stating that every new house built should have a charging point for, and accessible to, every parking space.
I guess we'll find out in the next year or so with the Tesla Model 3, where the new production line has just (slowly) started moving. Assuming all goes well and production ramps up as expected, there will be twice as many electric cars on the road next year as there are now. It will quickly become a test for the charging infrastructure required as well - no point being able to charge the car in 20 minutes if there's always a dozen cars in the queue when you pull in.
Qualcomm are doing some interesting stuff with wireless inductive charging - essentially making your car into a big electric toothbrush.
I've no idea if that's the future, but it's an interesting concept, and they *claim* it works well and, most importantly, *efficiently*. That seems as damned near magic as anything in tech atm ...
The quantities of chlorite and chlorate, the byproducts from using chlorine dioxide to disinfect poultry, are too low to realistically impact human health. According to data from the European Commission, a person would need to eat 5% of their bodyweight in chlorinated poultry daily to consume their tolerable daily intake of chlorate, or more than 23% to reach the same limit for chlorite.
The average adult woman would have to regularly eat more than two and a half chlorinated chickens a day before suffering any noticeable health effects. The typical man would have to eat nearly three whole birds each day. That is before “the expected decreases in the levels of these [chlorite] residues after processing, including cooking”, according to the European Commission.
Drinking water poses a far greater risk, contributing 99% of the disinfection byproducts consumed in a typical daily diet, with chlorinated poultry making up just 0.3% to 1% of total exposure.
The British government limits the combined concentration of chlorite and chlorate in water at 0.5mg per litre. At that upper bound, eating a whole chicken is roughly equivalent to drinking a glass of water.
Yep, I meant hybrids, obviously. But my points still stand.
You're praying at the altar of tech that's not there yet. That's dangerous, and you have to plan for potential failure as well as success.
One thing we might agree on: if the government are keen for this, then there should be a regulation stating that every new house built should have a charging point for, and accessible to, every parking space.
Yep, I meant hybrids, obviously. But my points still stand.
You're praying at the altar of tech that's not there yet. That's dangerous, and you have to plan for potential failure as well as success.
I am not praying at any bloody altar, I do not say that electric cars will solve everything or indeed anything, because unlike the dimmer warmist dweebs I realise that the future is unknowable. Having said that, if it weren't for the timescale I would bet a substantial amount that there will not be petrol/diesel engined cars in the first world in 2040. Technology develops when the financial incentive is there, economies of scale are a thing, early adopter premiums are not a thing after the early adopters have all adopted, and if we can find £n * 100bns for HS2 we can afford a bob or two to upgrade the supply network.
More strawmen. Nobody is claiming that the future is knowable. It is, however, predictable to a certain extent, and it makes good sense to make policy on the basis of evidence-based predictions.
I love that "to a certain extent"; I keep asking for other instances where computer modelling usefully predicts the future of any system of equivalent complexity to that of the earth's climate. Answer comes there none, and people have spent a lot of time looking for successful ways to predict the future of far less complex systems like stock markets. Consider also the point that at 2155 on 8 June there is no doubt that over 97% of experts confidently predicted a con maj. How is climate change different?
Of course there is a reasonable possibility that AGW is real and defeatable, and that justifies putting extra effort into things which are useful anyway like electric cars. But "taking precautions" is not a no-brainer when the precautions are distorting the economy into silly and incredibly expensive policies like biodiesel. And what concerns me more than that is the debauchery of science, by scientists, because they think an issue is too important to tell the truth about, and the ease with which the knuckledragging fraternity believes whatever it is told Because Ther Science.
One thing we might agree on: if the government are keen for this, then there should be a regulation stating that every new house built should have a charging point for, and accessible to, every parking space.
A bit tricky for flats.
Yep.
Although planners often insists that each flat has one or more parking spaces; the law would have to state that every such parking space has charging. It'd make the arguments over people parking in other people's spaces more onerous though. "You stole my leccy!"
One thing we might agree on: if the government are keen for this, then there should be a regulation stating that every new house built should have a charging point for, and accessible to, every parking space.
A bit tricky for flats.
Yep.
Although planners often insists that each flat has one or more parking spaces; the law would have to state that every such parking space has charging. It'd make the arguments over people parking in other people's spaces more onerous though. "You stole my leccy!"
The technology to authenticate when connecting to a charging point is already widespread. People could even potentially charge for the use of their spot.
Comments
I would have thought most households drive less than 50 miles per day...
But do you really need that ability and are you prepared to pay more for it?
It's a good idea, though. A huge incentive to innovate. We may get there a lot sooner than 2040.
How will the kitties hear them
McLaren and Porsche also use lithium 12v batteries in their sports cars (as they save a lot of weight over a lead acid one) and they will generally be happy left for 4-6 weeks, although they do supply a trickle charger for when storing the car.
"I would bet a substantial amount that there will not be petrol/diesel engined cars in the first world in 2040. "
You might be right, but the tech isn't there yet. We have a Honda Jazz, and there are loads of them about in our area. They start at £13,000 and offer 300-400 miles range. That's the market they need to get to, and that's difficult with current battery tech. And the Jazz is hardly the cheapest car. If this is going to happen, it cannot disenfranchise poorer segments of society from car ownership, where they can own one atm.
Although automated cars *may*, if they develop as fast as some suppose, utterly change travel patters, yet alone the car ownership market.
One thing we might agree on: if the government are keen for this, then there should be a regulation stating that every new house built should have a charging point for, and accessible to, every parking space.
https://www.qualcomm.com/products/halo
I've no idea if that's the future, but it's an interesting concept, and they *claim* it works well and, most importantly, *efficiently*. That seems as damned near magic as anything in tech atm ...
The average adult woman would have to regularly eat more than two and a half chlorinated chickens a day before suffering any noticeable health effects. The typical man would have to eat nearly three whole birds each day. That is before “the expected decreases in the levels of these [chlorite] residues after processing, including cooking”, according to the European Commission.
Drinking water poses a far greater risk, contributing 99% of the disinfection byproducts consumed in a typical daily diet, with chlorinated poultry making up just 0.3% to 1% of total exposure.
The British government limits the combined concentration of chlorite and chlorate in water at 0.5mg per litre. At that upper bound, eating a whole chicken is roughly equivalent to drinking a glass of water.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56eddde762cd9413e151ac92/t/59747741bf629a8e3d01a494/1500804930480/Chlorinated+Chicken.pdf
Of course there is a reasonable possibility that AGW is real and defeatable, and that justifies putting extra effort into things which are useful anyway like electric cars. But "taking precautions" is not a no-brainer when the precautions are distorting the economy into silly and incredibly expensive policies like biodiesel. And what concerns me more than that is the debauchery of science, by scientists, because they think an issue is too important to tell the truth about, and the ease with which the knuckledragging fraternity believes whatever it is told Because Ther Science.
Although planners often insists that each flat has one or more parking spaces; the law would have to state that every such parking space has charging. It'd make the arguments over people parking in other people's spaces more onerous though. "You stole my leccy!"