phasing out of fossil fuels - programme

[IanD]

1 hour ago, The Happy Nomad said:

If you read his post more carefully you will see its not about not 'wanting' to. Its about the practicalities for many many people.

 

Its alright banging on about 'electric being the future' but lots of people have concerns about how it is going to be achieved for people with certain motoring needs not just the need of doing a bit of shopping or getting the kids to school.

 

Tritley dismissing such concerns with 'just suck it up' because it works for me is frankly pathetic.

Nobody is tritely saying anything, except you ?

 

Solutions -- probably still BEV -- will have to be found for the people with exceptional needs, including farmers and people who move horses around and -- presumably -- Alan, the Tesla truck is a perfect example which IIRC can tow seven tons or so. What "certain motoring needs" can't be met by this or something like it?

 

For sure these solutions won't include what Alan does now according to his list -- buying a cheap dirty big thirsty ICE vehicle every few years that churns out lots of pollution, because it's cheap and convenient for him and he doesn't care about the consequences. Maybe the cost of new BEV like the Tesla will be subsidised for people who really need it to survive like farmers or they'll be given a longer grace period to switch, but I doubt that this will apply to people who do this as a lifestyle choice...

 

Like everyone else, he'll have to change. Not saying his lifestyle is being banned or needs ignored, but he'll have to find a way to make it work which meets with the new low-emissions reality.

 

Welcome to the brave new world of the future ?

Edited December 29, 2020 by IanD

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Nobody is tritely saying anything, except you ?

 

 

I refer you to post #900.

 

Trite.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Unfortunately its sort of do or die for the human race 

A good example of exactly what I was meaning.

 

Trite.

[ditchcrawler]

https://www.daf.co.uk/en-gb/trucks/alternative-fuels-and-drivelines

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/tesla-semi-electric-lorry-launch-pushed-back-2020

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

A good example of exactly what I was meaning.

 

Trite.

Maybe you should look up the dictionary definition of "trite". Are you suggesting that climate change doesn't threaten the future of society and possibly the human race? If so, your dismissal is trite in itself... ?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Maybe you should look up the dictionary definition of "trite". Are you suggesting that climate change doesn't threaten the future of society and possibly the human race? If so, your dismissal is trite in itself... ?

I do know what it means.

 

And your post is yet a further example.

 

The rather school masterly tone adopted by some climate change zealots is triite.

 

Oh and for the record I'm not 'dismissing' anything.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[IanD]

3 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I do know what it means.

 

And your post is yet a further example.

 

The rather school masterly tone adopted by some climate change zealots is triite.

 

Oh and for the record I'm not 'dismissing' anything.

 

 

 

 

So according to you, any further discussions about phasing out fossil fuels and climate change should be stopped because you're bored with everyone virtuously droning on about them?

 

Could it actually be that you're fed up of being reminded about something you don't want to discuss because your "alternative facts" arguments keep getting shot down in flames?

 

And your stock response is to insult people or call their motivations into question, because as soon as facts are brought out you know you've lost the argument?

 

Obviously a winning strategy, it worked for Donald Trump... ?

 

P.S. Welcome to my blocked list of trolls ?

 

trite

/trʌɪt/

Learn to pronounce

 

adjective

adjective: trite; comparative adjective: triter; superlative adjective: tritest

1. (of a remark or idea) lacking originality or freshness; dull on account of overuse.

   "this point may now seem obvious and trite"

    

[peterboat]

3 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

A good example of exactly what I was meaning.

 

Trite.

You might not like it, but unfortunately its true! We are in deep do dah and only real action will save us

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, IanD said:

So according to you, any further discussions about phasing out fossil fuels and climate change should be stopped because you're bored with everyone virtuously droning on about them?

 

Could it actually be that you're fed up of being reminded about something you don't want to discuss because your "alternative facts" arguments keep getting shot down in flames?

 

And your stock response is to insult people or call their motivations into question, because as soon as facts are brought out you know you've lost the argument?

 

Obviously a winning strategy, it worked for Donald Trump... ?

 

P.S. Welcome to my blocked list of trolls ?

 

trite

/trʌɪt/

Learn to pronounce

 

adjective

adjective: trite; comparative adjective: triter; superlative adjective: tritest

1. (of a remark or idea) lacking originality or freshness; dull on account of overuse.

   "this point may now seem obvious and trite"

    

Well thats the second time you have claimed to have blocked me. Pathetic.

 

It's not trolling to put an alternate view. Bone up on your definitions Mr. D.

 

Would you like me to post a definition of 'alternate' or will you continue to be your usual arrogant opinionated self and not listen?

 

Oh hang on you aren't. Lol

 

Grow some.

Edited December 29, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, peterboat said:

You might not like it, but unfortunately its true! We are in deep do dah and only real action will save us

I dont dispute that. This is not a binary 'brexiteqsue' type discussion. Which is what some people dont seem to grasp, including you sadly and particularly mr know it all @IanD

Edited December 29, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[magpie patrick]

The problem is that there are winners and losers in the equation, and "well you'll have to live with it" isn't really an answer for the losers, especially as, in some instances, they will already be the people getting the worst deal, running old cars and trying to hold down two or three jobs just to make ends meet - denying them access to jobs markets or hoiking up their transport costs isn't going to cut it, and sadly market adjustments often take an age to evolve, if they ever do. 

 

I'm at a loss as to why we don't already have ALL new developments providing charging facilities on a 1 to 1 basis (1 charger per parking space). Some of this has to do with pretending that people don't have cars, or at least that they don't have to have them (parking doesn't get provided for the same reason). The government is also obsessed with the idea that the market will provide. It might if the change was going to come by evolution over fifty years, but it is coming by edict and revolution over ten years - what will happen next is that local authorities will be expected to sort it out, but they're cash strapped too. 

 

I'm currently working on a development, a mix of historic renovation and new build - it has 276 parking spaces and that architect is "considering" putting in "a few" charging stations. I can't understand why they aren't being made to put in 276 chargers. 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

I'm currently working on a development, a mix of historic renovation and new build - it has 276 parking spaces and that architect is "considering" putting in "a few" charging stations. I can't understand why they aren't being made to put in 276 chargers. 

Seems bonkers does it not?

 

Much cheaper to install them now than retrofit them in 5 to 10 years time.

 

Developers need to be ahead on this now otherwise the whole program will fail or at the very least stall.

 

Your other point about the less well off is spot on, but not something that some in higher income brackets seem to be able to grasp.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

48 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I'm currently working on a development, a mix of historic renovation and new build - it has 276 parking spaces and that architect is "considering" putting in "a few" charging stations. I can't understand why they aren't being made to put in 276 chargers. 

At the very least it should be a requirement to have a capable supply and cable in place, ready to take the chargers as part of the project.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

The problem is that there are winners and losers in the equation, and "well you'll have to live with it" isn't really an answer for the losers, especially as, in some instances, they will already be the people getting the worst deal, running old cars and trying to hold down two or three jobs just to make ends meet - denying them access to jobs markets or hoiking up their transport costs isn't going to cut it, and sadly market adjustments often take an age to evolve, if they ever do. 

 

I'm at a loss as to why we don't already have ALL new developments providing charging facilities on a 1 to 1 basis (1 charger per parking space). Some of this has to do with pretending that people don't have cars, or at least that they don't have to have them (parking doesn't get provided for the same reason). The government is also obsessed with the idea that the market will provide. It might if the change was going to come by evolution over fifty years, but it is coming by edict and revolution over ten years - what will happen next is that local authorities will be expected to sort it out, but they're cash strapped too. 

 

I'm currently working on a development, a mix of historic renovation and new build - it has 276 parking spaces and that architect is "considering" putting in "a few" charging stations. I can't understand why they aren't being made to put in 276 chargers. 

I don't know where this "the losers have to suck it up and live with it" thing came from -- that might be a Brexiteer attitude, it's certainly not what I said (or intended to).

 

What I said was that charging at home isn't a problem for the two-thirds of households that have got drives or off-street parking, and that other solutions would have to be found for the third who don't.

 

These include kerbside charging, lamp-post charging, charging at work, charging in car parks/shops/pubs/restaurants, and charging at conventional "supercharger" fuel stations.

 

This may be less convenient or more expensive than plugging in at home -- which puts the one-third at some disadvantage -- but would mean they aren't excluded from society or locked out of jobs by BEV replacing ICE.

 

But there's no magic wand that can magically make a drive appear for people without one, in the same way that a shift back to wholesale burning of wood would be bad for houses without chimneys -- with any big change in society there will be winners and losers, and it's the job of government to try and cushion those who lose out from being hit too badly, but it's impossible to prevent this entirely.

 

And for sure rebuilding the entire world economy to reduce CO2 emissions and pollution means there are going to be winners and losers, anyone who thinks otherwise is in cloud-cuckoo land. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have sympathy for the losers and try and help them out, but the fact that there will be losers is not a reason to preserve the status quo and carry on killing the planet.

[1st ade]

1 hour ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

At the very least it should be a requirement to have a capable supply and cable in place, ready to take the chargers as part of the project.

I may pinch this thought for the next meeting of the Planning Committee at our Parish Council...

[Mike Todd]

18 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

I thought horses could move themselves, what with coming with a leg at each corner. Couldn't you move horses around with another horse? Perhaps one of your second best ones? Or with people? Even more 1000's of employment opportunities. Or trains, how horses used to be moved around to race meets and the like from trains being a thing till the mid 20th century. Not being able to do something in exactly the same way as you are doing it now, isn't the same as not being able to do it.

Only slightly tongue in cheek.

By the same argument, why do we need vehicles for human transport, seeing as we have a perfectly(?) good method of propulsion by two legs?

 

Given the opposition to HS2, what makes anyone think that the Great British Public would be prepared to shoulder the cost of investment needed to provide such a universal service? 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

By the same argument, why do we need vehicles for human transport, seeing as we have a perfectly(?) good method of propulsion by two legs?

 

Which is why changing the built environment to make walking and cycling (e and conventional) easier and safer with those two legs for shorter journeys is as much a part of phasing out fossil fuels as electric cars. A matter of using the most appropriate form of transport for the journey. I know some people can't walk, or bike, so there is always a place for using motor vehicles for short journeys for those that need to. Cycling and walking regularly keeps you fitter and healthier for longer, unless you get squashed by a motor vehicle first.

Jen

[Dr Bob]

24 minutes ago, IanD said:

What I said was that charging at home isn't a problem for the two-thirds of households that have got drives or off-street parking, and that other solutions would have to be found for the third who don't.

Absolutely. This is the key thing that peeps who don't drive EVs don't understand. There is plenty of charging availability for over 60% of the population and many others charge at work ( or will be able to!). I charge mine in the marina circa 3 times per month for local use. 

[doratheexplorer]

2 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

At the very least it should be a requirement to have a capable supply and cable in place, ready to take the chargers as part of the project.

My understanding is that most local authorities have a policy on this anyway and, if they're not included on the plans, a planning condition will be added to ensure the electric charging points are installed prior to occupation.  Certainly, that's my experience.

[Mike Todd]

28 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

My understanding is that most local authorities have a policy on this anyway and, if they're not included on the plans, a planning condition will be added to ensure the electric charging points are installed prior to occupation.  Certainly, that's my experience.

Not our experience and it is very recent (current)

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

My understanding is that most local authorities have a policy on this anyway and, if they're not included on the plans, a planning condition will be added to ensure the electric charging points are installed prior to occupation.  Certainly, that's my experience.

The charger problem is relatively easy to solve for new-build houses even without legislation, because people will soon have it on their ""essential features" list. But as everyone knows the number of these being built is tiny, only about 1% of the housing stock is replaced each year.

 

So by far the biggest problem is charging for the one-third of existing dwellings without off-street parking, and in many cases this has to be solved by local councils because it means installing infrastructure which only they can do.

 

In turn this needs financing, which means from central government since cash-strapped councils certainly can't afford it or have even more crucial things to spend their budget on. 

 

And this shows a blind spot in policy; the government is rightly taking measures (like taxation) to encourage people to switch to BEVs, but they're falling down on the job of putting charging infrastructure in place to support them -- more specifically providing money for this.

 

The usual Tory approach of hoping that "the markets" will make it will happen won't work, the private sector will simply cherry-pick lucrative areas for installation and ignore poor ones, just like happens with buses. This needs proper thought-through investment from the government to develop what is an essential national infrastructure.

[doratheexplorer]

8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Not our experience and it is very recent (current)

Then some Local Authorities have some catching up to do.

[David Mack]

On 28/12/2020 at 17:58, IanD said:

And here we have lots of drives and nobody parks on the pavements. I suggest you stop assuming that your local case is generally true for the country as a whole, just like the "I don't have a drive" faction, and look at the actual numbers...

And how many people in your area have garages, but still park their car(s) in the driveway or on the road because the garage is used for storage/workshop/gym/converted to extra living room etc.?

A while ago I read a Canadian urbanism blog that commented that even in their spacious suburbia, people had bought old pantechnicons which they parked in the road as extra junk storage, moving them only once a year for their annual vehicle registration.The blogger commented that keeping junk in your garage and parking on the street may be acceptable, yet the municipality would come down on you pretty swiftly if you kept your car in the garage and piled your junk in the street, yet this is what people are effectively doing.

[1st ade]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

A while ago I read a Canadian urbanism blog that commented that even in their spacious suburbia, people had bought old pantechnicons which they parked in the road as extra junk storage, moving them only once a year for their annual vehicle registration.The blogger commented that keeping junk in your garage and parking on the street may be acceptable, yet the municipality would come down on you pretty swiftly if you kept your car in the garage and piled your junk in the street, yet this is what people are effectively doing

We have a smaller scale version of that locally - except "enhanced" as people have realised that trailers don't require registering...

 

Many of the trailers now have flourishing eco-systems under them - anyone who brings in "no trailers except those attached to a taxed and insured vehicle (and with matching number plates)" would get my vote.

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And how many people in your area have garages, but still park their car(s) in the driveway or on the road because the garage is used for storage/workshop/gym/converted to extra living room etc.

Milton Keynes have now taken that further - if the regs say that a certain size of new build property needs two allocated spaces, the garage doesn't count as it's assumed it will never be used...

[TheBiscuits]

3 minutes ago, 1st ade said:

Milton Keynes have now taken that further - if the regs say that a certain size of new build property needs two allocated spaces, the garage doesn't count as it's assumed it will never be used...

 

Sadly each house has 4 cars ...