2030 no new diesel vans. What's your plan?

[Gromett]

Cheers for that Karl If they can get 50% more capacity does that mean 50% more range ? Or more? At the moment I believe a Tesla car has 300 plus miles and from what I understand most other cars only have half that range if they are lucky hence anyone got different battery technology? I remember reading a few years ago about sea salt batteries? That looked interesting but I never found any information on them but I gathered they are old technology? and a alternative to lead acid.
On a different note what van have you bought ?

There will be a choice. If/when they bring this out there will be a choice. double the range for the same size battery pack (physical) or do half the pack for the same range.

I Think you may be referring to flow batteries?

 

[Gromett]

All manufacturers are doing this Tesla just makes a big hoopla about it, whilst I cannot recall the Israeli company Tesla were using they learnt what they needed too and then started their own technology. It’s something Microsoft does, they will partner with an organisation learn what they need to then bring forward their own variant such as SQL server

No Tesla used the hardware from Mobileye which ended in 2016 because it just wasn't up to the job. The processor just couldn't handle the Tesla software. They then moved onto using NVidia off the shelf hardware for V2. This also restricted them, used too much power and didn't have the processing power they needed..

For V3 they hired their own Silicon designers and developed from scratch a ground breaking processor that combines memory at each node and loads of features specific to self driving cars. The NVidia chip was basically a repurposed GPU and had loads of stuff that pulled power but did nothing in a car. Teslas CPU is 100% dedicated to self driving, has loads more processing capabilities and does so in a lower power envelope than the NVidia based system.

It is not just a variant.

I note you have gone off on a tangent again. Are you deliberately trying to avoid these three very basic questions?

1) Who will buy a hydrogen car if there aren't any filling stations?
2) Who will invest in hydrogen filling stations if there aren't enough hydrogen cars to make them profitable?
3) Where are we going to get 3+ times as much electric for Hydrogen generation as would be used by direct charging EV's

 

[SpeedyDux]

This video may interest you.

Nature at work. Most of the methane released to the atmosphere will be removed by oxidation in the troposhere, and any left after that will be destroyed eventually in the stratosphere. One source for the 96% nature-created CO2. Clever Gaia.

 

[Gromett]

Nature at work. Most of the methane released to the atmosphere will be removed by oxidation in the troposhere, and any left after that will be destroyed eventually in the stratosphere. One source for the 96% nature-created CO2. Clever Gaia.

That is the natural process when everything is in balance. BUT when you produce more than the natural cycle then it is the old calories in calories out argument. Too many in and you get fat, too much methane and it is added faster than it removed, the ppm increases which we have seen already.

 

[SpeedyDux]

That is the natural process when everything is in balance. BUT when you produce more than the natural cycle then it is the old calories in calories out argument. Too many in and you get fat, too much methane and it is added faster than it removed, the ppm increases which we have seen already.

Where the balance should lie is a matter of opinion. As is the ideal global average temperature. There is no climate stasis.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Terry]

There will be a choice. If/when they bring this out there will be a choice. double the range for the same size battery pack (physical) or do half the pack for the same range.

I Think you may be referring to flow batteries?

Hi Karl just looked up flow batteries I thought lipo were expensive
No it was an Aussie Motorhomer who bought one and said it was a saltwater battery to replace FLA that had died. Sounded very interesting but I never found any info on them.... probably 5/6 years ago.I think he opted for it instead of lipo as they were 2k ish at the time. He had been using it for above a year and it had solved him battery problem. Never heard anything more about him.

 

[Terry]

Found them ----loads of info about them ------- No goer they are twice the weight of lithium battery and not as much power Did a search on Saltwater battery. Cannot remember what the Aussie called them hence me not finding anything at the time, just remember that he said sea water

 

[Gromett]

Where the balance should lie is a matter of opinion. As is the ideal global average temperature. There is no climate stasis.

Let's just try and put this into perspective shall we. This is the best example I have seen. Workr you way down steadily reading each bit. It is fascinating.

Earth Temperature Timeline

xkcd.com

Well worth the time (not long) and an eye opener.

 

[duane0001]

Let's just try and put this into perspective shall we. This is the best example I have seen. Workr you way down steadily reading each bit. It is fascinating.

Earth Temperature Timeline

xkcd.com

Well worth the time (not long) and an eye opener.

If it saves on my heating bills, I am all for it!

 

[Gromett]

If it saves on my heating bills, I am all for it!

Erm... Got some bad news for you. You do know that the UK gets milder winters than it should due to the jet stream and if the earth warms much more the jet stream is likely to move or even possibly stop altogether? Global warming could actually mean colder winters and hotter summers for us in the UK.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SpeedyDux]

Erm... Got some bad news for you. You do know that the UK gets milder winters than it should due to the jet stream and if the earth warms much more the jet stream is likely to move or even possibly stop altogether? Global warming could actually mean colder winters and hotter summers for us in the UK.

From personal observation I get the impression that the jet stream is further south of the British Isles more frequently, but I wouldn't draw any firm conclusions from that. The Met Office web pages on climate change predict wetter not colder winters for the UK. As for hotter summers even their prediction if the average global temperature rises by 3 degrees only means a 2 or 3 additional warm sunny days on average in each summer month. The Met Office doesn't predict more severe droughts or heat waves. All a teeny weeny bit disappointing. Many more people in the UK die from hypothermia than heat stroke.

Let's just try and put this into perspective shall we. This is the best example I have seen. Workr you way down steadily reading each bit. It is fascinating.

Earth Temperature Timeline

xkcd.com

Well worth the time (not long) and an eye opener.

Some slight but inconvenient glitches. It fails to explain for example why viking farming settlements in Greenland are currently under several metres of ice. The clue is that they named it Greenland not Iceland.

It ends with the somewhat discredited "hockey stick" prediction for global temperatures.

In 2004 it was predicted that Vanuatu and the Maldives would be submerged by 2020. Clearly the predicted rise in sea levels never happened but in fact they fell.

2 of the reasons why I am sceptical about the cult-like scientific concensus and the one-sided IPCC that seeks to shut down any further debate by real climatologists.

There is a real danger to nature and crop yields if atmospheric CO2 levels are cut. CO2 is plant food.

 

[Coolcats]

Nature at work. Most of the methane released to the atmosphere will be removed by oxidation in the troposhere, and any left after that will be destroyed eventually in the stratosphere. One source for the 96% nature-created CO2. Clever Gaia.

You may have come across James Lovelock and his work, but if not have a look at this BBC interview, he has written a few books and there is stuff on the internet.

He is the Scientist who named the Earths eco system Gia that you mention. He is also the scientist who pointed decades before others the Human factors behind climate change.

 

[Gromett]

It ends with the somewhat discredited "hockey stick" prediction for global temperatures.

It wasn't discredited. There was a controversy brought about by oil companies lobbyists etc. But the data on the whole stood up with minor corrections that weren't significant overall. Ignore the extremely small dotted "prediction" which I don't hold much value to. Just look at the hard line and see what has happened from the beginning to the end. Then tell me we are not having an effect.

In 2004 it was predicted that Vanuatu and the Maldives would be submerged by 2020. Clearly the predicted rise in sea levels never happened but in fact they fell.

I don't look at predictions, I am not a catastrophist. I look at the basic science, you know physics and chemistry which I do understand a little bit about. I steer clear of climatology as much as I can. There is no doubt that the earth is warming faster than at any other period in it's history. It is also clear that we are releasing huge amounts of CO2 and CH4. It is basic core science that this causes a warming effect. What I don't know is secondary and tertiary effects such as heat absorption capability and capacity of the ocean and the confounders of the permafrost releases. But the core fact remains. We are release CO2 at such a rate that warming has to be faster than under any natural conditions. I have said this before and will repeat here. I am not predicting that if we don't fix it by 20xx that we are doomed. I am simply saying that we need to do something about it sooner than later.

2 of the reasons why I am sceptical about the cult-like scientific concensus and the one-sided IPCC that seeks to shut down any further debate by real climatologists.

The IPCC is not one sided. It is a consensus which means an agreement amongst scientist. There are very few real climatologists who disagree that the earth is warming beyond natural rates, the only disagreements are the speed and the effects. The few who disagree with the warming facts are nutjobs and quacks. I personally don't even look at what the IPCC publishes as there does appear to be some catastrophists and green types pulling the conclusions harder than the data proves.

 

[Coolcats]

No Tesla used the hardware from Mobileye which ended in 2016 because it just wasn't up to the job. The processor just couldn't handle the Tesla software. They then moved onto using NVidia off the shelf hardware for V2. This also restricted them, used too much power and didn't have the processing power they needed..

For V3 they hired their own Silicon designers and developed from scratch a ground breaking processor that combines memory at each node and loads of features specific to self driving cars. The NVidia chip was basically a repurposed GPU and had loads of stuff that pulled power but did nothing in a car. Teslas CPU is 100% dedicated to self driving, has loads more processing capabilities and does so in a lower power envelope than the NVidia based system.

It is not just a variant.

I note you have gone off on a tangent again. Are you deliberately trying to avoid these three very basic questions?

1) Who will buy a hydrogen car if there aren't any filling stations?
2) Who will invest in hydrogen filling stations if there aren't enough hydrogen cars to make them profitable?
3) Where are we going to get 3+ times as much electric for Hydrogen generation as would be used by direct charging EV's

I think you agreed with what I said, they brought in technology that was right for them at the time learnt from it then as you say Brought in software and IT engineers to design from a position of what they had learnt. Its no different to Microsoft who partner learn and then go on to create thier own variants its the nature of the industry. All chips are ground breaking for that moment in time and only have a certain life span. I remember the H323 codec that was the size of a briefcase in 1991, by 1995 was a card and now, is standard and to most invisible in todays PC's.


How is that different moving from Petrol / Diesel to Battery cars, we know that whilst the infrastructure is getting better it is still way of what it needs to be and one reason we have not yet invested in a Battery car, not only do you see EV's queuing at our local BP station but range anxiety and charging stations at certain destinations often being out of order. Add to that many people who own cars park on the street and are not able to charge at home so even Battery Cars are certainly no Nirvana.

1) Clearly Hydrogen pumps are needed BP and Total have the land assets to do this and on a small scale are doing this in places such as Germany, which currently has 84 Hydrogen stations with 44 under construction, The UK has 11 with 1 under construction Link 1 Link 2

2) Venture Capitalists, Hedge Fund's ( these are sources of high risk and where Musk has had funding from) Government grants and investment

3) You ask where is the electricity will come from, Germany is planning to produce 20 TWh of green energy 14 TWh from wind

You may say Pah pitiful number of Hydrogen stations, but there was a time not so long ago when EV charging points were not available then a few now much more and in the near future many more. Your questions would have been exactly the same if you took the same approach to EV's as you have for Hydrogen.

Will Hydrogen be a dominant technology in Vans and light vehicle, possibly not but I do not think it is s dead technology and despite your Maths which I am not saying is in correct Hydrogen just may provide an alternative and it is going to be interesting to watch.

You say that you cannot see Hydrogen working for Cars yet here is a Le Mans Hydrogen LMP and here is the Forze Hydrogen Race car

Hydrogen Power is here and I think we will see it in more vehicles

 

[tonyidle]

Development of either doesn't exclude the other. A hydrogen vehicle is an EV with an expensive battery charger.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coolcats]

Development of either doesn't exclude the other. A hydrogen vehicle is an EV with an expensive battery charger.

Absolutely and suspect costs of all these vehicles to fall in time.

 

[SpeedyDux]

It wasn't discredited. There was a controversy brought about by oil companies lobbyists etc. But the data on the whole stood up with minor corrections that weren't significant overall. Ignore the extremely small dotted "prediction" which I don't hold much value to. Just look at the hard line and see what has happened from the beginning to the end. Then tell me we are not having an effect.


I don't look at predictions, I am not a catastrophist. I look at the basic science, you know physics and chemistry which I do understand a little bit about. I steer clear of climatology as much as I can. There is no doubt that the earth is warming faster than at any other period in it's history. It is also clear that we are releasing huge amounts of CO2 and CH4. It is basic core science that this causes a warming effect. What I don't know is secondary and tertiary effects such as heat absorption capability and capacity of the ocean and the confounders of the permafrost releases. But the core fact remains. We are release CO2 at such a rate that warming has to be faster than under any natural conditions. I have said this before and will repeat here. I am not predicting that if we don't fix it by 20xx that we are doomed. I am simply saying that we need to do something about it sooner than later.


The IPCC is not one sided. It is a consensus which means an agreement amongst scientist. There are very few real climatologists who disagree that the earth is warming beyond natural rates, the only disagreements are the speed and the effects. The few who disagree with the warming facts are nutjobs and quacks. I personally don't even look at what the IPCC publishes as there does appear to be some catastrophists and green types pulling the conclusions harder than the data proves.

Climatologists are the scientists best qualified to research and advise on climate change. Not chemists or physicists.

The anomalies that disprove predictions debunk the modelling. What you seem to be saying is that as long as the modelling is adjusted to reflect actual data that's the acceptable methodology. No it isn't. The same applies to the computer models that epidemiologists like Ferguson base their Covid-19 spread projections on.

The day that former V-P Al Gore actually walks the walk and adjusts his lifestyle to achieve a zero-carbon footprint is the day I start to believe at least some of his An Inconvenient Truth claims. Despite repeated criticism about his lifestyle and energy consumption, since 2007 very little has changed. You may think this is irrelevant, but he is only one example of the Great and the Good telling the little people to cut CO2 emissions while they carry on with whatever high level of CO2 emissions that suits them. If they truly believed their claims of the existential threat to humanity, and didn't have an underlying WEF agenda, they would behave very differently and lead by example. Meanwhile their credibility is ... literally incredible.

Broken Link Removed

 

[Gromett]

I think you agreed with what I said, they brought in technology that was right for them at the time learnt from it then as you say Brought in software and IT engineers to design from a position of what they had learnt. Its no different to Microsoft who partner learn and then go on to create thier own variants its the nature of the industry. All chips are ground breaking for that moment in time and only have a certain life span. I remember the H323 codec that was the size of a briefcase in 1991, by 1995 was a card and now, is standard and to most invisible in todays PC's.

No that is not quite the same thing. The V3 computer chip was designed from the ground up by people who weren't software engineers writing software for the V1 and V2 chips which had been bought in. Software engineers cannot design chips. It is a lot different to how MS works. MS works by buying in a company NOT to learn from them but to prevent them being a competitor. It is exactly the same as what Facebook does and totally different from what Tesla did with the Chip. They developed a completely new product that bore no relation to the previous companies products.
Basically no external provider could supply a ready made product that gave them the platform for their software.

1) Clearly Hydrogen pumps are needed BP and Total have the land assets to do this and on a small scale are doing this in places such as Germany, which currently has 84 Hydrogen stations with 44 under construction, The UK has 11 with 1 under construction Link 1 Link 2

You didn't answer the question. I specifically asked. Who is going to buy a hydrogen car until there is a full refuelling network in place? Go on. Would you buy a hydrogen car now?

2) Venture Capitalists, Hedge Fund's ( these are sources of high risk and where Musk has had funding from) Government grants and investment

The funding sources you quote are NOT going to invest in a refuelling network for one simple reason. There are not enough hydrogen cars on the road to make a profit. Musk was a different story, he was building a single product.

3) You ask where is the electricity will come from, Germany is planning to produce 20 TWh of green energy 14 TWh from wind

That 20TWh of wind would power 3+ times as many battery EV's. You haven't answered the question.

You may say Pah pitiful number of Hydrogen stations, but there was a time not so long ago when EV charging points were not available then a few now much more and in the near future many more. Your questions would have been exactly the same if you took the same approach to EV's as you have for Hydrogen.

There is a big difference between hydrogen and EV's in one major way. People who don't do long distance and have off road parking can buy one and charge at home. This is at bare minimum 50% of the UK market. So once you have that base level of potential customers the investors will come in and roll out a network of EV chargers. That is what is happening. Before Tesla model 3 the roll out of chargers was slow, since the Model 3 and other manufacturers jumping on the EV train the roll out is accelerating.

Will Hydrogen be a dominant technology in Vans and light vehicle, possibly not but I do not think it is s dead technology and despite your Maths which I am not saying is in correct Hydrogen just may provide an alternative and it is going to be interesting to watch.

You say that you cannot see Hydrogen working for Cars yet here is a Le Mans Hydrogen LMP and here is the Forze Hydrogen Race car

Hydrogen Power is here and I think we will see it in more vehicles

Again you wander off on a tangent. I have never said hydrogen cars don't work. So pointing to Le Mans is yet another diversion. The technology is there and it works. I have never said otherwise. My points are
1) No one will buy a Hydrogen powered car until there is a full network of filling stations.
2) No one will invest in a refuelling station network until there are enough cars to make the investment worth while.
3) Hydrogen takes 3+ times as much electric than directly charging a battery car.

I am not going to let up on those 3 questions until you either persuade me without referring to other countries, spurious sidetracks or non relevant statements that those 3 things are false OR don't impede the roll out of hydrogen for cars, vans and trucks in the UK and why.

 

[Gromett]

Climatologists are the scientists best qualified to research and advise on climate change. Not chemists or physicists.

Climatologists have to be part chemist and part physicist. There is a heirarchy of sciences with one built on the other.
At the top is Maths which underpins everything. All scientists need to understand maths.
Physics is at the top of tree, without physics you can't understand atoms, and the fundamentals of the universe.
Chemistry is based off the back of physics. Without physics you couldn't understand energy levels in an atom, or things like covalent bonds etc.
Biology is based off the back of Chemistry, without understand the chemical reactions you can't understand the processes. Biology also relies on physics.

Climateology relies on maths, physics, chemistry and biology. The problem is that the lower down the tree you get (and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense) the more complex the systems the harder predictions become.

The anomalies that disprove predictions debunk the modelling. What you seem to be saying is that as long as the modelling is adjusted to reflect actual data that's the acceptable methodology. No it isn't. The same applies to the computer models that epidemiologists like Ferguson base their Covid-19 spread projections on.

I have never mentioned modelling at all. I have even said I don't hold much weight to the predictions. Why do you keep coming back to that? It is basic physics and existing proven data that has led me to my conclusion.
Sunlight comes in as high frequency light and ultra violet. It gets reflected as infrared. When an infrared photon hits a CO2 or CH4 molecule it gets absorbed and raises the energy level of that molecule. The molecule will eventually settle down and re-release that energy as an infrared photon. This is proven science (Physics) without any doubt. The direction that the released photon goes in is random so on average half of them will head back down to the earth. If your CO2 and CH4 levels are stable then there will be a stable point where energy emitted is the same as energy absorbed. This is not rocket science and is easy to grasp. So with all that agreed, what happens when you double the quantity of CO2 or CH4 in the atmosphere? Please note there is no model required, or complex maths, or climatology degree. It is logical to assume that the temperature of the system will rise. Here is where it gets complicated. We can't model every single system on the planet. We can calculate how much CO2 the ocean would absorb if it was in a stable state. This is basic maths and physics. However if the CO2 rises in the sea we can't predict ALL the effects it will have in the ocean's bio system. So there may be a method by which some creatures or plant absorbs a lot of CO2 which keeps the rises in the oceans CO2 levels lower than the physics would predict in a stable system. The point I am making here is that the prediction should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't particularly have any problems with them nor do I trust them. I just don't even consider them.

My point is simply this. There is only so long you can push heat into a system before something gets too hot to handle. How long this will take in the case of our planet I haven't the foggiest and don't pretend to know. I just know that the temperatures have risen faster than at any point in recorded history. The core science of global warming is indisputable by anyone with even a base knowledge of the sciences. When it gets into politics I just shut off.

The day that former V-P Al Gore actually walks the walk and adjusts his lifestyle to achieve a zero-carbon footprint is the day I start to believe at least some of his An Inconvenient Truth claims. Despite repeated criticism about his lifestyle and energy consumption, since 2007 very little has changed. You may think this is irrelevant, but he is only one example of the Great and the Good telling the little people to cut CO2 emissions while they carry on with whatever high level of CO2 emissions that suits them. If they truly believed their claims of the existential threat to humanity, and didn't have an underlying WEF agenda, they would behave very differently and lead by example. Meanwhile their credibility is ... literally incredible.

Broken Link Removed

Al Gore is a cock womble to be polite about it. I have no time for him or other greeny type politicians and campaigners. Most of them are a bunch of hypocrites of the highest order and should just shut up.
I also don't have time for the petrochemical industry nor their shills who are trying to deny that CO2 and CH4 cause global warming simply to protect their profits.

 

[Gromett]

It ends with the somewhat discredited "hockey stick" prediction for global temperatures.

I just want to put to rest this "Discredited" hockey stick idea. At the time there was a great deal of controversy and the oil industry shills went wild with it. The hockey stick has been discredited in the public's mind but later analysis confirmed it to be accurate (the data up till today).
I am not going to talk about the predictions based on it though.

Here is one example of an article from the time from a reputable source. You will note they updated this article at a later date while leaving the original content untouched.

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

Despite repeated claims that the famous temperature reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, all the evidence supports it

www.newscientist.com

This is the update they posted, at a later date.

Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.

The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it’s hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Further back in the past, though, it certainly has been hotter – and the world has been a very different place. The crucial point is that our modern civilisation has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems.

You will notice if you read the whole article that it even refers to the myths surrounding the warmer medieval period.

Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

All the evidence shows it is warmer now than it has been for at least the past 1000 years - and it is going to get even warmer

www.newscientist.com

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coolcats]

I am not going to let up on those 3 questions until you either persuade me without referring to other countries, spurious sidetracks or non relevant statements that those 3 things are false OR don't impede the roll out of hydrogen for cars, vans and trucks in the UK and why.

There is no persuading you gromett, and it is not my Job to do so, my comments are equally as valid as yours I did say that other markets may take up technologies that we do not in this country.

You have said that Hydrogen is unsuitable for Cars I pointed to Le-mans as these are cutting edge high performance vehicles that demonstrate the capability of a particular technology and clearly Hydrogen is suitable for this purpose. It works... Hydrogen is part of the Carbon free future how it is implemented remains to be seen.

The three points you are fixated on are movable, personally Neither I or you have the money or influence to change any of them but Commerce Industry and Governments do. Lets see what the future holds there is room enough for Alternate fuel vehicles and currently 'we' are being the early stages of this.

Regarding Microsoft, they have partnered with organisations and have then gone on to develop their own variant, they do not always buy the company.

 

[SpeedyDux]

I just want to put to rest this "Discredited" hockey stick idea. At the time there was a great deal of controversy and the oil industry shills went wild with it. The hockey stick has been discredited in the public's mind but later analysis confirmed it to be accurate (the data up till today).
I am not going to talk about the predictions based on it though.

Here is one example of an article from the time from a reputable source. You will note they updated this article at a later date while leaving the original content untouched.

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

Despite repeated claims that the famous temperature reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, all the evidence supports it

www.newscientist.com

This is the update they posted, at a later date.



You will notice if you read the whole article that it even refers to the myths surrounding the warmer medieval period.

Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

All the evidence shows it is warmer now than it has been for at least the past 1000 years - and it is going to get even warmer

www.newscientist.com

I understand that you wish to shut off when it comes to politics. Unfortunately the underlying political agenda is as important as the science, if not more so. I am not going to go into details on that subject for obvious reasons. I would merely suggest with all due respect that understanding the wider context via your own research is extremely important.

Predictions and the modelling on which they are based are key to the global warming debate even though you disagree. As for the scientists' dismissal of historical claims and anecdotal evidence about the Medieval Warm Period, that's just typical. It's a pity that so much of their view of past global temperatures (a reconstruction in the absence of actual measurements) is based on evidence that is more patchy and uncertain the further back you go.

My background (although I did maths physics and chemistry at school) means I attach importance to the principle of hearing both sides of the argument. For me, the jury is still out and we are crazy to make net zero CO2 an overriding national policy goal and even make it statutory.

Happy Christmas!

 

[Gromett]

There is no persuading you gromett, and it is not my Job to do so, my comments are equally as valid as yours I did say that other markets may take up technologies that we do not in this country.

There is persuading me... I am very persuadable if given evidence. I have made 180° turn in what I believe when the evidence is provided on many occasions, in fact on this subject I used to believe hydrogen was the future and fuel cells were the answer to everything. I have over the last 18 months been persuaded otherwise convincingly by the science and the economics.

On cars, vans and Trucks, what other countries do is for them. I am talking about what is possible, practical and economical here. We do not have lots of sunlight like in australia for cheap solar power. We do not have vast areas of cheap land with good coastal exposure for wind turbines. The cheap options for getting cheap electric for hydrogen is not here. So any hydrogen we produce will be competing with electric for other purposes.

Cars, vans and lorries running on hydrogen just aren't practical here.

You have said that Hydrogen is unsuitable for Cars I pointed to Le-mans as these are cutting edge high performance vehicles that demonstrate the capability of a particular technology and clearly Hydrogen is suitable for this purpose. It works... Hydrogen is part of the Carbon free future how it is implemented remains to be seen.

You are twisting my meaning now. I never said hydrogen was unsuitable for cars period. You know I was talking about cars, vans and lorries in this country.

The three points you are fixated on are movable, personally Neither I or you have the money or influence to change any of them but Commerce Industry and Governments do. Lets see what the future holds there is room enough for Alternate fuel vehicles and currently 'we' are being the early stages of this.

They are valid questions and they are at the root of my statement as to why I believe hydrogen cars, vans and lorries in this country are not practical. It is up to me to decide what parts of what I believe are movable and what are not. I have given you the three reasons why I do not see Hydrogen taking off in this country for cars, vans and lorries. You seem insistent that they are but provide no counters to my points or answers to my question.

 

[Gromett]

I understand that you wish to shut off when it comes to politics. Unfortunately the underlying political agenda is as important as the science, if not more so. I am not going to go into details on that subject for obvious reasons. I would merely suggest with all due respect that understanding the wider context via your own research is extremely important.

I don't shut off completely when it comes to politics. I just don't listen to every bobble head in politics. I really don't care what they say. I listen when it comes to policy and spending to ensure I understand how it will affect me and the country in the future.

I have done a lot of reading on this subject. I was confused by the global warning thing late 90's early 00's because when I was growing up we were heading towards another ice age.

Predictions and the modelling on which they are based are key to the global warming debate even though you disagree. As for the scientists' dismissal of historical claims and anecdotal evidence about the Medieval Warm Period, that's just typical. It's a pity that so much of their view of past global temperatures (a reconstruction in the absence of actual measurements) is based on evidence that is more patchy and uncertain the further back you go.

You are misunderstanding me. I do not get into the predictions of the models because I understand their flaws. The scientists do not dismiss the evidence for the Medieval warm period, they simply point out the this mainly affected the northern hemisphere and the atlantic areas. Other areas measurements show the opposite and therefore the global average was around the same. You say this is a dismissal I say it is a better understanding.

My background (although I did maths physics and chemistry at school) means I attach importance to the principle of hearing both sides of the argument. For me, the jury is still out and we are crazy to make net zero CO2 an overriding national policy goal and even make it statutory.

My background means I look at the core evidence and try to push the non essential data to one side to get to the truth. Here are the facts I believe are irrefutable.
1) CO2 and CH4 reflect heat back to the earth, this is basic physics.
2) We have been pumping incredible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously locked under ground.
3) The previous highest CO2 levels whilst humans have been on the planet was 300ppm it is now over 400ppm
4) The hard evidence is that the earth has heated up by 1°C in the last century.

point 1 and 2 tells me that we are heating the earth up, only we don't know how fast.
Point 3 tells me we must be having some impact over natural variability.
point 4 is the most telling though. The earth average temperature excluding natural short term variability has never rise this fast EVER... That suggest to me that it is definitely us that is causing it.


I think the 30 years target to go carbon neutral is pretty reasonable myself.

Happy Christmas!

And to you too have a good one

 

[Gromett]

Apple plans self-driving car 'in 2024 with next-level battery technology

Another challenger to Tesla

I suspect if Apple made MoHo's it would be at a N&B standard of luxury

Looks like your linked article got some facts wrong. They are not using LFP (LiFePO4) batteries they are using Lithium Titanate (LTO) which is an excellent choice for battery. These are pricey even by Li battery standards but are exceptionally rugged, good lifecycle and decent performance.

The battery was not developed in house but is a Toshiba produced cell and the pack is produced by Toshiba also.

Still no news on who is building the car for them, or the stage of development.

With them using LTO I am a little more impressed than I was with the LFP tech. They still have an issue though.

They are either using Lidar in which case they are reliant on accurate GPS maps and are thus restricted to operating in pre-planned pre-plotted areas. Or if they are using vision like Tesla they need to start getting LOTS of cars on the road to train their AI.
Either way, no challenger to Tesla within the next 3 years up to 2024.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[singlofty]

I'm going to make a Zero Point Module for my van, naquadah reactors are so last year!!

 

[Coolcats]

I'm going to make a Zero Point Module for my van, naquadah reactors are so last year!!

Love it can I ask if you can make me one as well please and don't worry about the cost it only money

 

[Gromett]

Coolcats you seem to think I am against hydrogen yet I have consistently made pro hydrogen comments. See this conversation we had over a year ago.

Broken Link Removed

You recently pointed to Nikola and their hydrogen trucks. Not only have they admitted to fraud, they are now losing customers hand over fist. Think you might want to rethink recommending people look at them as a good example;

Nikola stock craters after cancellation of major garbage truck order

Nikola has been on the defensive since fraud allegations surfaced in September.

arstechnica.com

 

[singlofty]

ZPM 15 quid all in - get them while they're hot (well they will be after the microwave is turned on)

 

[Gromett]

I have previously said that I don't think my next Van would be an EV. I will probably be looking in 2030.. I buy 10 year old vans and run them for 10 years.

This year there is a raft of new vans being launched. This one seems to have the range I would need (150 miles) and the price is attractive in comparison to the competition..

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}