Interesting article about electric vehicles

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

No, I'm fully aware of what you'r saying.  If adequate supplies of renewable energy are available then the efficiency of H2 production is irrelevant.  I realise that not every home in the UK has hydro-power or solar in abundance, but I am sure that more and more renewable will become available as we become more inventive. 

 

Even now, in hot sunny countries (e.g. the Middle East) or countries with an abundance of hydro potential (e.g. Canada and Scotland) there is no excuse for using fossil fuels.  

If supplies of renewable energy were enough that you don't mind wasting a lot of it, you're correct. The chances of that happening in the next 50 years while there's such pressure to phase out fossil fuels is however zero. Any country with excess renewable energy will sell it to other countries which haven't, not throw it away turning water into hydrogen. You're completely ignoring the realities of the economics of energy supply and consumption; one huge priority is to replace fossil fuels with renewables, an equally big priority is to increase energy efficiency. And since to encourage better efficiency any transport is likely to continue being taxed according to its overall energy consumption (C02 emissions now), this would mean not only fuel costs but taxes would be a lot higher for hydrogen vehicles than BEV.

 

This is the reality of hydrogen powered vehicles, and why nowhere is seriously considering rolling them out in any real volume -- yes there are a few tiny volume trials to showcase the technology, but no chance of it ever being rolled out in volume production until somebody repeals the laws of thermodynamics, no matter how attractive it seems from the range/quick fillup points of view...

[Murflynn]

let's be brutally honest - electric cars will be the least of our worries if we don't manage to reduce the human population within the next generation.

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

let's be brutally honest - electric cars will be the least of our worries if we don't manage to reduce the human population within the next generation.

I have read that the population of the world is likely to peak at about 9 billion, after which it will self regulate - not sure I like the sound of that, so you are probably correct with your worries.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

let's be brutally honest - electric cars will be the least of our worries if we don't manage to reduce the human population within the next generation.

There are enough resources and food to support the projected peak population, but not if everyone aspires to the wasteful Western lifestyle we have  now which consumes so much energy, food and resources...

[Momac]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

There are enough resources and food to support the projected peak population, but not if everyone aspires to the wasteful Western lifestyle we have  now which consumes so much energy, food and resources...

Will this affect our boating ?

[Dr Bob]

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Will this affect our boating ?

It will if the 9billion decide to buy widebeams on the GU.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

I have read that the population of the world is likely to peak at about 9 billion, after which it will self regulate - not sure I like the sound of that, so you are probably correct with your worries.

I think by the time it gets to 9 billion I'll have stopped worrying about anything.

[Murflynn]

10 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I have read that the population of the world is likely to peak at about 9 billion, after which it will self regulate - not sure I like the sound of that, so you are probably correct with your worries.

I have read that it will be more like 11 billion.  That is about 9 billion too many.  

 

 

...........................  any volunteers?  ..........  preferably in the 'developing' countries where the population explosion is happening.

 

 

I worked for the UN in Malta in 1975.  We had a conference involving all the different agencies where one speaker from the UNDP noted that the world population was currently 4 billion and was predicted to rise to 8 billion within 50 years .............. he then observed that such a number was unsustainable even in the short term, and he (his agency) predicted that the only conclusion was that there would be a world-wide catastrophe of some sort which would reduce the population.   I guess he was thinking in terms of famine, epidemic or war.

[WotEver]

23 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

It will if the 9billion decide to buy widebeams on the GU.

I’ve heard they all want to be on the K&A

[MtB]

18 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I’ve heard they all want to be on the K&A

 

Despite rumours, I'd say the vast majority of boats here on the K&A are narrowboats. About nine out of every ten I'd say. 

[cereal tiller]

26 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I’ve heard they all want to be on the K&A

Thought they already were?

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, cereal tiller said:

Thought they already were?

 

Did you miss post 85?

 

 

[cereal tiller]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Did you miss post 85?

 

 

Yes but I will not Pine for it..

[Gareth E]

21 hours ago, Murflynn said:

I have read that it will be more like 11 billion.  That is about 9 billion too many.  

 

 

...........................  any volunteers?  ..........  preferably in the 'developing' countries where the population explosion is happening.

 

 

I worked for the UN in Malta in 1975.  We had a conference involving all the different agencies where one speaker from the UNDP noted that the world population was currently 4 billion and was predicted to rise to 8 billion within 50 years .............. he then observed that such a number was unsustainable even in the short term, and he (his agency) predicted that the only conclusion was that there would be a world-wide catastrophe of some sort which would reduce the population.   I guess he was thinking in terms of famine, epidemic or war.

The consensus on here seems to be that it's a problem but politicians steadfastly refuse to discuss the issue. Any thoughts as to why that might be?

[MHS]

47 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

The consensus on here seems to be that it's a problem but politicians steadfastly refuse to discuss the issue. Any thoughts as to why that might be?

Because banning sex might prove unpopular!

[Bee]

2 hours ago, Gareth E said:

The consensus on here seems to be that it's a problem but politicians steadfastly refuse to discuss the issue. Any thoughts as to why that might be?

Because when they speak of 'difficult choices' it doesn't include them, but mostly because they do not want to address anything more than a year or so in the future. Also, its only a year or two since that grinning idiot Owen Patterson was the environment secretary and he doesn't even believe that climate change is a fact, all he wanted to do was cull badgers.  Until we get politicians who have some sort of vision we are doomed. Apparently the UK is also set to  rules on incinerating rubbish, this is an environmental cost of the cursed brexit. When countries need to act together in the undoubted common interest of all its the good old buccaneering UK set to gain an advantage by avoiding its responsibilities. Sorry, just got up and run out of milk therefore somewhat cross. Rant over.

[peterboat]

4 hours ago, Bee said:

Because when they speak of 'difficult choices' it doesn't include them, but mostly because they do not want to address anything more than a year or so in the future. Also, its only a year or two since that grinning idiot Owen Patterson was the environment secretary and he doesn't even believe that climate change is a fact, all he wanted to do was cull badgers.  Until we get politicians who have some sort of vision we are doomed. Apparently the UK is also set to  rules on incinerating rubbish, this is an environmental cost of the cursed brexit. When countries need to act together in the undoubted common interest of all its the good old buccaneering UK set to gain an advantage by avoiding its responsibilities. Sorry, just got up and run out of milk therefore somewhat cross. Rant over.

Most important always have an emergency  box of milk!!! The rest well ministers rarely know what they are doing do they? We have a couple of incinerators around here and they seem to work well, in lots of ways better than burying our rubbish which then becomes another problem for the future! We the population are the problem, and no doubt one day very soon we will take a step to far with the earth and we will be wiped out, with luck other life will survive and the earth will keep on spinning

[Onionman]

7 hours ago, Gareth E said:

The consensus on here seems to be that it's a problem but politicians steadfastly refuse to discuss the issue. Any thoughts as to why that might be?

 

What do you want the politicians to do? The evidence is that population growth is slowing rapidly.  Plenty of overseas aid funds go to birth-control measures.  They also go to help people out of poverty (something that massively affects birth rates) yet many of the same people who complain about overpopulation also complain about Britain spending money on overseas aid. Who'd be in politics?

[MtB]

On 26/10/2018 at 06:45, Gareth E said:

The consensus on here seems to be that it's a problem but politicians steadfastly refuse to discuss the issue. Any thoughts as to why that might be?

 

That's an easy one to answer. 

 

Governments need a population to govern. With no population no governing is required, so ensuring the population persists is a basic and fundamental function of the government animal. 

 

And by extension, a bigger population to govern is always a goal of any government. More people = more tax, a bigger pot for politicians to dip their sticky fingers into, and generally a bigger empire to administer, which = a Good Thing if you are a politician.

 

This is why controlling the population will never be taken seriously by politicians. It runs against their interests.

[Gareth E]

22 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

That's an easy one to answer. 

 

Governments need a population to govern. With no population no governing is required, so ensuring the population persists is a basic and fundamental function of the government animal. 

 

And by extension, a bigger population to govern is always a goal of any government. More people = more tax, a bigger pot for politicians to dip their sticky fingers into, and generally a bigger empire to administer, which = a Good Thing if you are a politician.

 

This is why controlling the population will never be taken seriously by politicians. It runs against their interests.

Fine. Presumably they are aware that growth in the population is the single most important issue the world faces, it's the root cause of climate change, shortage of resources etc. By choosing to ignore the issue, they should accept that the public hold them in contempt.   

[MtB]

26 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Fine. Presumably they are aware that growth in the population is the single most important issue the world faces, it's the root cause of climate change, shortage of resources etc. By choosing to ignore the issue, they should accept that the public hold them in contempt.   

 

The politician animal is even thicker-skinned than certain widebeam owners, so I cant see that bothering them in the slightest.  

 

 

[Murflynn]

 

 

1 hour ago, Gareth E said:

By choosing to ignore the issue, they should accept that the public hold them in contempt.   

"ooh err, guv, the public is holding us in contempt."

 

"so?  what's new?"

 

 

[WotEver]

12 hours ago, Murflynn said:

"ooh err, guv, the public is holding us in contempt."

 

"so?  what's new?"

Sire, sire, the peasants are revolting!