Jump to content

All electric cars by 2030?


GregC
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes isn't it the real agenda to only eventually have essential vehicles only .

I don't drive but it is a form of freedom being eroded .

Also all the mines it will take to get batteries ,all in south America or Africa with all pollution that will / does cause plus indigenous harm, especially to anyone standing up to protect land from mining

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Campion said:

And why are cars being targeted over other means of transport? Why not have equality with the same targets for motorbikes, lorries, vans, trains, buses, ships, planes? 

 

Its not just cars though.

 

We already have Royal Mail, DPD and DHL making deliveries and collections at work in electric vans. Especially in areas where there are CAZ (Clean Air Zones) in place, delivery companies are being 'encouraged' to invest in zero-emission vehicles.

 

Electric scooters and bikes are also being encouraged, though in a 'pay-and-ride' way rather than through private ownership.

 

And many big bus operators have also made 'pledges' to stop buying diesel vehicles, and to invest in zero-emission buses (fully-electric or hydrogen fuel cell powered).

 

On the subject of buses, I meant to write about this before, but forgot about it. In summary, Jo Bamford - heir to the JCB empire - bought the struggling bus manufacturer Wrightbus when it went into administration in 2019.

 

Since then Wrightbus has truly bounced back as a pioneer in the development of hydrogen fuel cell powered electric buses, with hundreds of vehicles now on its order books, with many already in active service.

 

Coincidentally, Jo Bamford is also the founder of a company that specialises in producing hydrogen for use as fuel in such vehicles, and was also involved in a hydrogen investment fund company.

 

His family have been Tory donors, and big political backers of (soon to be former) prime minister Boris Johnson.

 

Bamford has been lobbying the UK government to push for adoption of hydrogen fuelled vehicles since 2019.

 

He got his wish when then-Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps announced a programme to convert public transportation in towns into all-electric hydrogen buses.

 

How convenient! Talk about "right place, right time".

 

And of course, millions of pounds of public money have been awarded to bus operators by the Government in the last few years in the form of "grants", to enable them to purchase such vehicles, which are naturally more costly compared to their diesel or hybrid-diesel equivalents.

 

It's easy to make money by creating a 'demand' for your product, when you're being financed by the Government that you lobbied.

 

That's how cronyism works.

 

And no doubt Bamford will be pushing his technology for use in other 'heavy goods vehicles' such as coaches and lorries.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

It's easy to make money by creating a 'demand' for your product, when you're being financed by the Government that you lobbied.

 

That's how cronyism works.

 

That so-called "privatisation" in the 1980s turns out to be a hoax. Buses and trains dependent on taxpayers' subsidy are hardly private businesses: the ownership may be private but the income needs propping up from the public purse. 

Edited by Campion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2022 at 2:40 PM, Campion said:

And why are cars being targeted over other means of transport? Why not have equality with the same targets for motorbikes, lorries, vans, trains, buses, ships, planes? 

It's also about limiting people's ability to travel. One can travel a lot further in a petrol powered vehicle than an electric vehicle. One can fuel up and get back on the road right away in a petrol powered vehicle. If power grids go off line, one can still power petrol vehicles, even create alternate fuels. Electric vehicles help to keep us useless eaters contained.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

It's also about limiting people's ability to travel. One can travel a lot further in a petrol powered vehicle than an electric vehicle. One can fuel up and get back on the road right away in a petrol powered vehicle. If power grids go off line, one can still power petrol vehicles, even create alternate fuels. Electric vehicles help to keep us useless eaters contained.

 

I would agree. At the 'low end' of the market, ordinary motorists are being encouraged to switch to fully-electric vehicles, which have their range limitations.

 

The ultimate aim is to have motorists restricted to a small area in which they can travel, before their vehicle needs an overnight charge again.

 

While we already have electric vans and buses - which do have a decent range on them - I'm predicting that the rise of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is aimed more at the 'heavy goods' vehicle market, your buses, coaches and trucks that have to travel long distances.

 

As they use stored hydrogen to generate electricity to power them (as opposed to electric stored in a battery), they can be filled up much more quickly than a large battery-bank takes to recharge from being plugged into the mains.

 

On that basis, I doubt we'll really see much development of hydrogen fuelled cars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

As they use stored hydrogen to generate electricity to power them (as opposed to electric stored in a battery), they can be filled up much more quickly than a large battery-bank takes to recharge from being plugged into the mains.

 

On that basis, I doubt we'll really see much development of hydrogen fuelled cars.

 

This is my main beef with the current heavy marketing of electric cars, that they take so long to charge up and have a limited range even when you do. I don't have a possibility of charging at home without trailing a cable across the road, or having a mass construction of kerbside chargers. So hydrogen cars seem a much superior option, if we are to buy into the whole carbon emission reduction narrative (which I don't but the govt does, and increasingly the corporations).  The fact that hydrogen isn't being promoted for private drivers speaks volumes about the strategy behind all this. 

 

Also in the news this week was the agreement with French company EDF to build a new reactor at Sizewell B. After all, with the extra demand from electric cars we'll need more power stations, and what's the point having electric cars if the electricity is generated by fossil fuels? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's a rumour that the wef have said that people wont be allowed to own cars, if its true i wonder how long it will take their minions in various governments to make it law?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eddy64 its coming

 

GOVERNMENT transport ministers have backed calls to end private ownership of vehicles in a major overhaul.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1535798/private-car-ownership-road-driving-changes-updates

 

Transport minister, Trudy Harrison, said any new proposals would be “fit for the future” of road travel.

 

https://www.trudyharrison.co.uk/meetings-visits

22/07/2021 - Net Zero Roundtable

20/07/2021 - Panel Event - NIA Why Net Zero Needs Nuclear

13/07/2021 - Environment APPG: Low Carbon Homes: Building for Net Zero

05/07/2021 - Net Zero Roundtable: Secretary of State Kwarteng and Minister Trevelyan

and the big one

18/04/2019- Visit to World Economic Forum Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Edited by bamboozooka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

On 7/26/2022 at 2:02 PM, eddy64 said:

there's a rumour that the wef have said that people wont be allowed to own cars, if its true i wonder how long it will take their minions in various governments to make it law?  

 

its true alright

World Economic Forum Urges Public To Eliminate Ownership Of Private Vehicles

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/world-economic-forum-urges-public-eliminate-ownership-private-vehicles/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2022 at 2:02 PM, eddy64 said:

there's a rumour that the wef have said that people wont be allowed to own cars, if its true i wonder how long it will take their minions in various governments to make it law?  

 

They may not need to make it 'law', it will just become impossible to buy a car outright.

 

As I see things panning out, there is already an 'aim' to stop the sale of new petrol/diesel engine vehicles by 2035-2040.

 

Vehicle manufacturers are already developing and selling electric cars, but for most people they are unaffordable. Many manufacturers seem to be scaling back production of petrol/diesel models already, so even the cost of these will start to increase.

 

There is still a buoyant 'second-hand' car market, with plenty of 'fairly-new' vehicles available owing to people switching to electric models.

 

The stickler now though is the cost of the fuel, while prices at the pumps appear to be stabilising and even dropping, they are still much higher than they have ever been. Cheap fuel is a thing of the past.

 

The continuing "cost of living crisis" will ensure that many people won't be able to afford to buy any new electric vehicle, so what will get rolled out is the 'long-term rent' type of agreement, not too far from the current financing/leasing models already in existence. The difference being you never actually get to 'own' the vehicle outright, and thus have an 'asset' that you can sell on at a later date.

 

"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" - everything you do have is merely 'rented' or 'leased'. For which you pay a princely monthly amount. "Only £300 a month!" or something appealing like that.

 

Subscription-based service model. There may even actually be some benefits, for example if your vehicle breaks down or suffers some mechanical failure, rather than have to take it to a garage for repair which could see it off the road for some time, it could just be exchanged for another one. After all, its not 'your' car, your service subscription just 'allows' you personal exclusive use of a vehicle.

 

"xxx-as-a-service" is a buzzword that has risen to prominence over the last few years, and the latest one I came across is "Electric transport as a service (ETaaS)"

 

I've mentioned here before about electric buses, and how Coventry is set to become an "all-electric bus city" by 2025.

 

Bus operator National Express Coventry is currently taking delivery of up to 130 brand new electric vehicles, all of which should be in service by early next year.

 

What I since learned is that National Express are not buying these vehicles themselves, they are being bought by a company called Zenobe, who will also be providing charging infrastructure to be installed at the garage.

Quote

Now fleet operators can also enjoy the benefits and flexibility of the ‘as a service’ model.

 

With ETaaS we’re able to finance and manage complete solutions including new vehicles, onboard battery replacement, charging and grid infrastructure, a depot second-life battery system, unique software to optimise charging, parts – and full operational support.

I don't know the figures, but essentially National Express will be paying Zenobe a regular sum of money, and in return they get to use vehicles and charging infrastructure which are owned by Zenobe. The vehicles never belong to the bus company.

 

This kind of 'service model' could well be rolled out across the board, whether it truck or light van fleets, or even company car fleets. Even down to individual car owners.

 

I think if someone were to 'look deeper' into this Zenobe company, you'll likely find they are backed by enormous hedge-fund investors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i thought a few years ago when they announced they were getting rid of ice cars and replacing them with electric there'd never be enough infrastructure for them and the government has no intention of building more. was obvious they would stop car ownership for us dirty peasants.

 

they want a feudal system for us, not sure that will go down well when most of the population realise what's going on.

 

 

 

Edited by eddy64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 7:41 PM, Talorgan said:

Perhaps the horse and cart will  be the answer ,or for speed a chariot ,good for fertiliser too ,

A phaeton was the sports model of the "horse and cart" for boy racers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the whole el.car saga was introduced just to back track the development of the society 

 

to keep the transport expencive, ect.

 

at the moment you have to be an idiot to buy el. car,the only thing they are good at is limiting your autonomy and freedom of movment 

 

and being ugly AF!!!

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is well worth a read. I'd be lying if I said I understood all of it but it's not hard to get the gist of it.

 

Buying a Tesla vs Pyrgeometer Realities

image-611_jpg.jpg.8100bfbb838ba15ed7e2ab3cae473ae6.jpg

 

If you feel depressed, here are two nice ways to get happy again: Buy a Tesla or a Pyrgeometer. You know what a Tesla is and what a pyrgeometer is can be read by downloading the manual for the Kipp and Zonen CGR3 Pyrgeometer. It shows that a pyrgeometer, when directed to the sky, on its display shows Downwelling Long Wave Radiation DLWR (also named back radiation) from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface of typically size 340 W/m2 to be compared with the 170 W/m2 absorbed by the surface from the Sun, about two extra Suns. 

If you are a CO2 alarmist this makes you really happy because you can now point to these two extra Suns as a supposed massive effect from so called atmospheric greenhouse gasses supposed to radiate massive DWLR. 

Now, the manual shows that the thermopile of the pyrgeometer measures a voltage scaling with the difference of atmospheric and Earth surface temperature of typically 15 C with estimated net radiative flux of 60 W/m2 from the surface to the atmosphere. That is what is measured, which is not so fun to look at for an alarmist, so to make such people happy Kipp and Zonen instead displays 340 W/m2 from the atmosphere to the surface computed from the following equation

 

  • 400 = 340 + 60, 
where 400 is by Planck postulated Outgoing Long Wave Radiation OLWR from the pyrgeometer at 15 C, as if the pyrgeometer as a blackbody is in radiative contact with the cold outer space at 0 Kelvin.  Further, 340 is DWLR and 60 as above radiation from surface to atmosphere. So we get 340 = 400 - 60 as DWLR. But doing so the pyrgeometer acts as a ghost detector by assuming massive OLWR from the pyrgeometer as if it is in radiative contact with cold outer space at 0 C, while in fact it is radiative contact with a 15 C colder  atmosphere. What is measured is 60 up, but what is reported is 340 down
 
This is nothing but scientific fraud created by a misrepresentation of a key physical fact: The pyrgeometer is not in radiative contact with outer space at 0 K, but with a 15 C colder atmosphere (the atmospheric window is small). This is massive fraud serving as the instrumental basis for Net Zero, which if implemented would throw humanity back to the Stone Edge at greatly reduced numbers. Can you think of something bigger?
 
When you realise this you will get depressed again, but then after a second thought you can restore happiness by recalling that you have revealed/understood the scientific fraud of global warming, and then you can proceed to a happy life without worrying about CO2 emissions and Net Zero. Happy, right?
 
To compare with the Tesla, suppose your Government offers you a massive repay/refund as Downwelling Government Money DGM of 70.000 dollars if you purchase a new Tesla for 80.000 and thus only have to pay net 10.000 according to the formula:
  • 80 = 70 + 10.
You would then get happy, right? But you may quickly get a second thought and ask who will pay the DGM? From where can this money come? Could it be that it will come from taxes you pay, so that in fact you have to pay the full amount 80.000, which is way beyond your budget. Ok, so this will make you depressed. But again, when you realise that there is no need for any Tesla at all if there is no Net Zero, and so you are not pressed to buy a Tesla to save the World. Happy, right?
 
If you don't think that what I say above is true, take a look at the following Earth's Energy Budget presented by NASA:
 
Screenshot%202022-08-13%20at%2016.34.47.png
 
Compare now with the Wikipedia energy budget without Back Radiation DWLR:
 
Screenshot%202022-08-15%20at%2010.36.21.png
 
We thus meet two versions of Earth's energy budget underlying CO2 alarmism, one with and one without Back Radiation. This connects to Bohr's idea of complementarity: Light is both particles (photons) and waves, which are viewed not as contradictory but simply as complementary views of a richer particle-wave phenomenon. In fact, any contradiction in physics can be handled this way, in particular Earth's energy budget, which in a fundamental way is based on Back Radiation (top picture), while at the same time it has nothing to do with any such concept (below picture). Back Radiation is truly fundamental, yet you can do without it completely. It exists and does not exist, and that is no contradiction, only complementary views. This is modern physics at its best. 
 
If you have in your hands both A and notA as being true, then you can win any discussion. Whatever your opponent say, A or notA, you can say that he/she is wrong and that you are right. Very clever strategy.
 
Try it to see how smoothly it works!
 
 
 
[Note from me: It's worth having a quick read throught the comments on the source page as well].
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...