Electric vehicles infrastructure

Malced said:
You’ve asked for thoughts and I think you’ve set the conversation up nicely with your own.

It’s not nice to see that one or two have badged anyone with doubts and concerns as negative.

There’s many questions to answer and many huge challenges ahead.

From an affordability perspective it’s easier for those that might get an electric vehicle via work or their business.

For me to replace my diesel taxi with an electric model it’s just unaffordable right now. And I don’t have the opportunity to plug such a vehicle in overnight.

I could talk about this topic until the cows come home. It’s very interesting and there’s so many angles. But in short, I doubt very much that the government targets can be met without some radical and generous trade in scheme.
Unfortunately what I think we’ll see instead is increasingly punitive measures against those who can’t afford to convert. So in effect, another tax on the less wealthy.

It is right though, that kids should be able to play in their school playground without having to breathe in toxic particles. The sooner we get there the better.

On that subject we also need to rid society of the wood burners that have become so popular in recent years. They are incredibly polluting and as harmful, if not more harmful, than diesel emissions.

Anyone who has one of these burners in their homes is blighting the community, harming the health of others, but also destroying their own health, silently but steadily.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Too long. Got bored. Especially after the unecessary digs at the start.

You need to learn to get to the point.
 
Macseasider said:
So the government plans for the whole of the UK to be driving electric vehicles by 2030 with petrol and diesel having a last stand of 2035.

2030 is less than 7 years away and the more I read from both car journalists and car manufacturers and sellers this is pie in the sky.

Not only can people not afford to purchase an electric vehicle but there is next to zero infrastructure to support it AND most importantly they are no better for the environment and will cost more to run.

Personally I've alway thought the idea of electric cars a load of bollocks and the charging of them requires immense use of fossil fuels anyway. I was always under the impression that until vehicles are run on hydrogen then it's a waste of time?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I’ll try again.

Too long. Boring. Get to the point.
 
The main issue for EV is the energy requirement and infrastructure. National Grid estimates for all cars and vans to be electric, we’d need 60-100 twh extra electricity a year. For reference, the grid produces around 300 twh a year at the moment. Only 35/40% of that from wind/solar on average.

We’d need to more than double our sustainable energy production to do this. This also doesn’t include HGV’s which are harder to electrify.

That’s to just electrify ONE mode of transport. Aviation predicts it would need an extra 140 twh to decarbonise (using hydrogen and carbon capture).

Now think of all the houses we need to get off gas etc….there’s just not enough being done to address this.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
We’ve transferred ours at work and prices are comparable and the infrastructure is absolutely fine and growing rapidly.

Most people I speak to who have gone electric wouldn’t go back.

As ever the ‘Oil Industry’ together with those who fear change love to sow the seeds of pessimism.
Click to expand...
Truth is that the National Grid cannot generate enough electricity to sustain everyone running electric cars and until that is rectified it is as the poster says, pie in the sky.
 
So despite the lifestyle showboating from BFCx3 and Tom Folding it seems my OP was a reasonable observation. 2030 for full electric is, in the opinion of the majority, pie in the sky.
 
What a waste, I bet the Govt are giving out multi millions in grants to these dreamers. What about all the plastic trmming in cars and the tyres. Are we going to have to use paper seats and paper tyres. This green industry is a scam.
 
I think the only ‘pie in the sky’ is this thread and the general lack of understanding about what is actually being targeted.

Firstly (and probably most importantly) the Government aren’t proposing that everyone will be driving an Electric Vehicle by 2030, which (correct me if I’m wrong) on re-reading the O/P following some of the ‘wildest’ estimates for electricity demand, seems to be the assumption?

To be clear I imagine that it will be more like maybe 10M EV’s and that is very ambitious.

The plan is (and I’ve cut and paste the specific language for clarity)

  • to end the sale of new petrol and diesel petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030
  • for all new cars and vans to be fully zero emission at the tailpipe by 2035
So the targets relate to the sale of new vehicles👍

For anyone interested to engage with the reality, the strategy can be viewed HERE


Secondly, U.K. Electricity Consumption has been falling for the past couple of decades, following its peak shortly after the Millennium… It has continued to fall over the past 10 years or so, despite the addition of maybe 1.5 - 2M Electric and Hybrids.

Of course, the addition of an additional 8M Electric Vehicles will require sone additional infrastructure (see strategy) and this will create additional capacity demands.

Again for anyone interested, National Grid have developed their own strategy documents and numerous demand scenarios have been tested.

Without getting too complex (I hope) there’s one interesting ‘factor’ which many on here might not have considered is how EV’s essentially provide the U.K. with a massive combined battery storage facility. With intelligent charging (and even potential discharging) this is going to help in terms of balancing system demand, as the Generation Mix moves towards increasingly sustainable (but maybe less predictable) sources.

Intelligent system balancing to meet a complex and very different type of grid is one of the most significant developments…

I’m not going to apologise for my positivity, when it comes to sustainability. As I’ve said already, I’m confident in the expertise and invention we have here in the U.K. My personal experience is that there has been wholesale change in attitude over the last few years in particular and people within the Energy Sector are highly motivated to get the job done. 👍
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I think the only ‘pie in the sky’ is this thread and the general lack of understanding about what is actually being targeted.

Firstly (and probably most importantly) the Government aren’t proposing that everyone will be driving an Electric Vehicle by 2030, which (correct me if I’m wrong) on re-reading the O/P following some of the ‘wildest’ estimates for electricity demand, seems to be the assumption?

To be clear I imagine that it will be more like maybe 10M EV’s and that is very ambitious.

The plan is (and I’ve cut and paste the specific language for clarity)

  • to end the sale of new petrol and diesel petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030
  • for all new cars and vans to be fully zero emission at the tailpipe by 2035
So the targets relate to the sale of new vehicles👍

For anyone interested to engage with the reality, the strategy can be viewed HERE


Secondly, U.K. Electricity Consumption has been falling for the past couple of decades, following its peak shortly after the Millennium… It has continued to fall over the past 10 years or so, despite the addition of maybe 1.5 - 2M Electric and Hybrids.

Of course, the addition of an additional 8M Electric Vehicles will require sone additional infrastructure (see strategy) and this will create additional capacity demands.

Again for anyone interested, National Grid have developed their own strategy documents and numerous demand scenarios have been tested.

Without getting too complex (I hope) there’s one interesting ‘factor’ which many on here might not have considered is how EV’s essentially provide the U.K. with a massive combined battery storage facility. With intelligent charging (and even potential discharging) this is going to help in terms of balancing system demand, as the Generation Mix moves towards increasingly sustainable (but maybe less predictable) sources.

Intelligent system balancing to meet a complex and very different type of grid is one of the most significant developments…

I’m not going to apologise for my positivity, when it comes to sustainability. As I’ve said already, I’m confident in the expertise and invention we have here in the U.K. My personal experience is that there has been wholesale change in attitude over the last few years in particular and people within the Energy Sector are highly motivated to get the job done. 👍
Click to expand...
I admire your positivity about sustainability, and im with you on that, and you're right about the sales rather than actual cumbustion cars being on the road, but in order to push electric car sales, limitations will be put onto petrol and diesel cars. Several spanish cities have banned inward jouneys into the centre, Madrid has put the limits as far as the inner ring motorway, which of course creates more conjestion on the outer rings for drivers of traditional vehicles and causes those drivers to have slightly longer journeys. Saying that Madrid has a massive pollution problem.

You're right, electric consumption is shown to be going down, energy efficiency on electrical equipment, a fridge today uses less than half the electricity of a fridge from just 25 years ago but domestic use is going up. We use more electrical devices, and with more automated systems being a part of domestic homes, the need for electric power will still be a big issue. Self generation is also a factor in the consumption, domestic wind and solar could have a massive impact and network generation needs. i have seen a calculation that states 12 to 20 sq m of solar panels on each house would provide 50 to 75% of household electrical needs. I'm designing an off grid house at the moment for myself and im assuming that we will have at least 1 electric car in the house, i currently do most of my local travelling, basic shopping trips etc by electric bike, i only use my car for long trips, ive worked from home for the best part of 7 years so i no longer have to travel either.

My desire for a more sustainable model of energy is what makes me somewhat cynical about the government's stance. The UK National grid PLC's strategies has as much to do if not more with maintaining shareholder value as it does with supply and sustainability. It has a massive amount of debt, which it has to service as a priority over investment and infrastructure development. the majority of UK energy supply and distribution is in foreign hands and many are in a similar position in regards to debt. The survivability of those companies and the security of UK energy, has been an issue for more than a decade, and it will take government investment to change to sustainable models, which means of course tax payers funding the dividends for shareholders of private companies.

If the infrastructure doesn't get built for both sustainable energy production then the sustainable aspects of electric cars are simply false, over and above the higher carbon footprint of electric car manufacturing in the first place. if the infrastructure for electic car charging is left to the auto manufacturers which it mostly is at the moment we end up with a largely monopolised point of view on that infrastructure, although in spain and france and portugal the major energy supply companies are being forced to act in building charge stations, but spain and france both still have energy security as a priority and their major energy suppliers are still effective monopolies.

So like i said i admire your positivity, but personal and professional experience tells me that there are still far too many political, and economic barriers being put in the way of mass sustainable energy development outside of teh practical issues, and hence the ability of the governemnt to meet its predictions of even sales of non emmission vehicles. I'm also of the opinion that the current electric cars are a transition model, there are just too many issues with them; range, carbon footprint in manufacturing, battery issues etc etc,.
 
I listened to a You and Yours phone in on this topic on Radio 4 recently.
Well the topic was the used car market but it strayed onto EVs as they’re increasingly becoming part of the used car market themselves.
There was an industry spokesperson on the panel.
He said it’s myth about battery degradation being a significant issue.
He said batteries only degrade by 1% a year. So in the scheme of things that won’t greatly reduce the effectiveness of a second hand EV.
I know he’s from the industry so he will have a vested interest in promoting EVs, but the concern about battery life is one mentioned on this thread so I thought I’d share what the industry is saying.
1% a year isn’t so bad.
Ultimately though, I agree with Costero. And it’s not negativity, it’s pragmatism and reality.
We are in a transitional state from petrol/diesel to electric.
The technology will keep improving, prices will come down and accessibility will increase.
Early adopters who are fortunate enough to go electric will be just fine as they can afford it. But for all too many, it’s too expensive and impractical and just not going to happen anytime soon.
Once council is offering taxi drivers a £5k subsidy to help them transition over to an electric cab. But as one driver said, ‘where do I get the other £35k from?’
 
Danny Ocean said:
There are three major problems.

1) There are a lot of people that are currently living in terraced houses, flats, etc that will not be able to have access to their own charging point,

and instead of filling up every week or two will be requiring a charge every couple of days.

2) Battery vehicles tend to hold less and less charge as they age and the range fails, and are really expensive to repair when the batteries start to

fail. Will there be a shortage of reliable older vehicles for poorer people to run?

3) Hydrogen cars are much lighter and have a much greater range, Toyota is launching new hydrogen models now, and VW has a hydrogen car

developed with a 2000km range. They have hydrogen fuel cells and convert them into electricity to run electric motors. So it combines

zero emissions, long range, and the driving performance of electric vehicles.
Click to expand...
1 agree with that point so you will need to use a charge Centre like the local Shell garage, or supermarket etc if you don’t have home charging. (No different to now then as I cannot fuel my petrol car at home)

1b. Illogical comment. My EV has similar range to my petrol car (albeit my petrol car is a silly one). At worse it would be twice as often if you had a longer capacity diesel compared to an EV. What will be the range of EV in 2030? Might be further than a petrol tank.

2. Still not enough evidence here. Manufacturers like Tesla offer battery warranties and my friend has a 5 year old Tesla second hand and drop in storage is about 5% compared to new. I think there will be a hell of a lot of second hand ones coming available in next 24 months. Also second hand ICE cars have more working parts which fail.

3. Hydrogen looks exciting but as of yet none of the major car manufacturers have chosen hydrogen over EV due to safety concerns or viability. You would have thought they’d go Hydrogen if they believed in it?
I personally thought that would be the route to replace ICE but the experts don’t.
 
I know I might come across all evangelist but I honestly think there can be a future without ICE cars and that will be good for air pollution (I’ve vested in this as I’ve lost family members to Copd and Asthma).

There are a lot of things that need to be resolved but you know for a fact that the Oil & Gas giants will put infrastructure in place to charge EV or hydrogen if they can make money from it
 
Malced said:
There was an industry spokesperson on the panel.
He said it’s myth about battery degradation being a significant issue.
He said batteries only degrade by 1% a year. So in the scheme of things that won’t greatly reduce the effectiveness of a second hand EV.
I know he’s from the industry so he will have a vested interest in promoting EVs, but the concern about battery life is one mentioned on this thread so I thought I’d share what the industry is saying.
1% a year isn’t so bad.
Click to expand...
That's a good example of misleading the audience without actually lying.

There are some sources out there that claim ~1% p/a, others that claim 2%, but either way, the key point is that's in the first few years of ownership.

What he's not telling you is that towards the end of the battery's life the rate of degradation increases rapidly, so while an 8-year-old battery might still hold 90% of its charge, it doesn't follow that a 12-year-old one will hold 85%, it could be far, far less than that.

Nobody knows for sure how long and how well the batteries will last, the manufacturers almost universally offer 8 years warranty (down to 70%) and we should get more than that, but at 10 years I think we need to view the vehicle as essentially on its last legs and good for no more than one or two more years at best and value the vehicle accordingly.
 
Lost Seasider said:
That's a good example of misleading the audience without actually lying.

There are some sources out there that claim ~1% p/a, others that claim 2%, but either way, the key point is that's in the first few years of ownership.

What he's not telling you is that towards the end of the battery's life the rate of degradation increases rapidly, so while an 8-year-old battery might still hold 90% of its charge, it doesn't follow that a 12-year-old one will hold 85%, it could be far, far less than that.

Nobody knows for sure how long and how well the batteries will last, the manufacturers almost universally offer 8 years warranty (down to 70%) and we should get more than that, but at 10 years I think we need to view the vehicle as essentially on its last legs and good for no more than one or two more years at best and value the vehicle accordingly.
Click to expand...
Although an option would be to replace the battery?
 
Who knows where we’ll be in 10/20/40 years, electric car batteries could be a chip which you charge overnight like your phone.
 
You won't need to wait hours to charge your car - batteries-as-a-service will be developed, where you get to a swap station to change your battery as quick as it takes to fill up with petrol. I can't say whether that tech will be widely available in time for 2030, but when you think about it, that is the logical next step and if it's necessary, it'll be developed. It also solves the issues surrounding people in flats and terraced housing. You'll pay a battery subscription fee (which will probably be where the replacement to fuel duty will be charged).
 
MY SON has had an ev for several years . JAGUAR ESPACE as it happens. I DO know he charges it at his home. AS A SELF employed mortgage broker it is convenient and easy to get to any potential clients, he leases it and sets the cost against business expenses. . HAVING been in it as a passenger i must say i am a fan but i would say that anyway. I think he is changing it next year for a more SUV type ..
 
JOHNMAJORTOM said:
MY SON has had an ev for several years . JAGUAR ESPACE as it happens. I DO know he charges it at his home. AS A SELF employed mortgage broker it is convenient and easy to get to any potential clients, he leases it and sets the cost against business expenses. . HAVING been in it as a passenger i must say i am a fan but i would say that anyway. I think he is changing it next year for a more SUV type ..
Click to expand...

We just did Winchester and Southampton and back, via a cruise. Filled up before we left and stopped for a coffee on the way down. Topped it up parked outside the entrance of the services whilst we grabbed a coffee and a toilet stop.

5 hour drive. Parked close to the port and filled it up whilst we went for lunch. Return journey, stopped at Warwick for coffee and toilet and again topped it up. That was enough to get us home. No stress, nothing really different from the routine in the petrol barring it was filling when we had lunch rather than filling when I drove into the petrol station.

Nowhere near perfect, but a long way from awful. They drive better, no clouds of poison out of the back of it either.

Time will tell on the tech improving or if we move to Hydrogen, swap out battery’s or just keep making diesel cars?
 
If you don’t have a license, and get caught driving an EV, you won’t be charged. They charge the vehicle instead. 🤪
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I just don’t understand why folk get do up tight and stressed about it all tbh.

If you don’t want one… don’t get one 👍
Click to expand...

And if you don’t like GB News, instead of getting stressed and uptight, …..don’t watch it. 👍
 
Malced said:
And if you don’t like GB News, instead of getting stressed and uptight, …..don’t watch it. 👍
Click to expand...
The thing with me Malco… I don’t fear things that I don’t like. And I certainly wouldn’t decide that I didn’t like Electric Cars or GB News without having tried it.

I regularly listen in to GB News … In fact I like to make sure I’m fully open to all kinds of media and opinion…. I’m not interested in living in an echo chamber and shutting myself off from alternative opinions.

That doesn’t mean I can’t see the station for what it is though 👍
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The thing with me Malco… I don’t fear things that I don’t like. And I certainly wouldn’t decide that I didn’t like Electric Cars or GB News without having tried it.

I regularly listen in to GB News … In fact I like to make sure I’m fully open to all kinds of media and opinion…. I’m not interested in living in an echo chamber and shutting myself off from alternative opinions.

That doesn’t mean I can’t see the station for what it is though 👍
Click to expand...

That’s fair enough. I don’t watch it but I’ve seen snippets. Those snippets have not made me want to watch the channel, but I feel more content knowing it’s not just another sky/bbc clone.
 
Malced said:
That’s fair enough. I don’t watch it but I’ve seen snippets. Those snippets have not made me want to watch the channel, but I feel more content knowing it’s not just another sky/bbc clone.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends what you’re looking for. In terms of delivering the ‘News’, my personal view is that it should be delivered in a balanced way and without an overlay of political bias.

For the most part, I think that’s what you get from the BBC / ITV etc…

GB News is extremely biased and slanted to the right… Certainly way beyond anything I’ve ever experienced in British Broadcasting before.

By and Large I think it’s all a bit low grade and the presenters are pretty weak and limited (but I suppose it’s low budget)….It’s all a bit Fox News and I’m not sure they do much to genuinely engage people (beyond the Flat Earth types) with their ‘beliefs’…

Personally I find individuals like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson to be far better advocates for conservatism.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I suppose it depends what you’re looking for. In terms of delivering the ‘News’, my personal view is that it should be delivered in a balanced way and without an overlay of political bias.

For the most part, I think that’s what you get from the BBC / ITV etc…

GB News is extremely biased and slanted to the right… Certainly way beyond anything I’ve ever experienced in British Broadcasting before.

By and Large I think it’s all a bit low grade and the presenters are pretty weak and limited (but I suppose it’s low budget)….It’s all a bit Fox News and I’m not sure they do much to genuinely engage people (beyond the Flat Earth types) with their ‘beliefs’…

Personally I find individuals like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson to be far better advocates for conservatism.
Click to expand...

If it were 10 years ago I’d be defending the bbc to the hilt. But I have seen it morph away from news telling to agenda driven skewed reporting.

I’m not talking left or right. But they don’t give balance to stories like they used to. They have a narrative, whatever that may be, and that’s what we get pushed. There’s little room for different opinions and challenge.

So channels like GB News, whilst maybe rough around the edges, are serving a purpose to keep these mainstream media channels on their toes.

You may well be fine with the mainstream media, but there’s lots of recent evidence which points to that being far from the norm. The trust in mainstream media is much lower than it should be. That’s not a modern day phenomenon because trust, in the media remains high in many other countries.

The BBC’s reputation, including for honesty and impartiality, is at a seemingly all time low.

During covid they were too complicit with the government and big pharma. They censored alternative views and doggedly pushed the one narrative. Well that’s how I saw it, and I know many others did too.
 
Malced said:
If it were 10 years ago I’d be defending the bbc to the hilt. But I have seen it morph away from news telling to agenda driven skewed reporting.

I’m not talking left or right. But they don’t give balance to stories like they used to. They have a narrative, whatever that may be, and that’s what we get pushed. There’s little room for different opinions and challenge.

So channels like GB News, whilst maybe rough around the edges, are serving a purpose to keep these mainstream media channels on their toes.

You may well be fine with the mainstream media, but there’s lots of recent evidence which points to that being far from the norm. The trust in mainstream media is much lower than it should be. That’s not a modern day phenomenon because trust, in the media remains high in many other countries.

The BBC’s reputation, including for honesty and impartiality, is at a seemingly all time low.

During covid they were too complicit with the government and big pharma. They censored alternative views and doggedly pushed the one narrative. Well that’s how I saw it, and I know many others did too.
Click to expand...
Two points…

First, I think the only ‘bias’ I see in the BBC is that it tends to be ‘inclusive’ .

Second, in a National / International Crisis like CoViD it would be super irresponsible of the ‘state broadcaster’ to undermine the Government Policy and sow the seeds of conspiracy.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Two points…

First, I think the only ‘bias’ I see in the BBC is that it tends to be ‘inclusive’ .

Second, in a National / International Crisis like CoViD it would be super irresponsible of the ‘state broadcaster’ to undermine the Government Policy and sow the seeds of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

It depends how you see the media. As you know, covid was something new and there was a lot we didn’t know. Policy was being made up on the hoof by best endeavours.

The covid inquiry will reflect on things that were done wrong and should have been done better.
Some of the mistakes were avoidable.
I don’t agree the state broadcaster has to align itself to the state at any time. It’s not a propaganda machine.
Nor should differences in opinion be classed as conspiracy. That’s just a tactic to silence and discredit dissenters.

At a time when our freedoms were constrained more so than we’d ever seen before, I’d say it’s essential for the media to air different views rather than merely be a voice piece for the state.

It’s not the media’s role to encourage us to follow government policy. It’s their job to tell us the policy and explain it, and allow challenge.
 
Malced said:
It depends how you see the media. As you know, covid was something new and there was a lot we didn’t know. Policy was being made up on the hoof by best endeavours.

The covid inquiry will reflect on things that were done wrong and should have been done better.
Some of the mistakes were avoidable.
I don’t agree the state broadcaster has to align itself to the state at any time. It’s not a propaganda machine.
Nor should differences in opinion be classed as conspiracy. That’s just a tactic to silence and discredit dissenters.

At a time when our freedoms were constrained more so than we’d ever seen before, I’d say it’s essential for the media to air different views rather than merely be a voice piece for the state.

It’s not the media’s role to encourage us to follow government policy. It’s their job to tell us the policy and explain it, and allow challenge.
Click to expand...

Big difference between the main news programmes and other news talk/opinion ones.
I heard plenty of different and alternative views aired in those if not on the six o’clock, ten o’clock bulletins etc.
 
Malced said:
If it were 10 years ago I’d be defending the bbc to the hilt. But I have seen it morph away from news telling to agenda driven skewed reporting.

I’m not talking left or right. But they don’t give balance to stories like they used to. They have a narrative, whatever that may be, and that’s what we get pushed. There’s little room for different opinions and challenge.

So channels like GB News, whilst maybe rough around the edges, are serving a purpose to keep these mainstream media channels on their toes.

You may well be fine with the mainstream media, but there’s lots of recent evidence which points to that being far from the norm. The trust in mainstream media is much lower than it should be. That’s not a modern day phenomenon because trust, in the media remains high in many other countries.

The BBC’s reputation, including for honesty and impartiality, is at a seemingly all time low.

During covid they were too complicit with the government and big pharma. They censored alternative views and doggedly pushed the one narrative. Well that’s how I saw it, and I know many others did too.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with the last paragraph, although also true of all the mainstream media.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Two points…

First, I think the only ‘bias’ I see in the BBC is that it tends to be ‘inclusive’ .

Second, in a National / International Crisis like CoViD it would be super irresponsible of the ‘state broadcaster’ to undermine the Government Policy and sow the seeds of conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Not showing the alternate view just pushes people to the sidelines though increasing paranoia and conspiracy.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Not showing the alternate view just pushes people to the sidelines though increasing paranoia and conspiracy.
Click to expand...
They did show / cover alternate views though?

Obviously the level of credibility that you are going to attach to any particular ‘perspective’ will always be based upon the credibility and expertise of the proponents.

And at times it was a case of ‘Expert Scientist’ vs ‘Crackpot with a Laptop’.

I’m not sure you can start giving equal weight to the crackpot element in the midst of an international crisis and if that means a few crackpots get more paranoid and deluded than usual, I suppose it’s probably a price worth paying.

Of course, there’s been quite a bit of revisionist opinion since CoViD is no longer the pressing issue it was and we have more information available….. Those kind of ‘benefit of hindsight’ experts will always raise their heads and bless everyone with their wisdom after the event.
 
One of the other big problems is the actual electric mains cables that are in the roads being capable of taking the increased current that

will need to be used. Especially as we will be banning the use of gas boilers from 2025 in a new build.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
They did show / cover alternate views though?

Obviously the level of credibility that you are going to attach to any particular ‘perspective’ will always be based upon the credibility and expertise of the proponents.

And at times it was a case of ‘Expert Scientist’ vs ‘Crackpot with a Laptop’.

I’m not sure you can start giving equal weight to the crackpot element in the midst of an international crisis and if that means a few crackpots get more paranoid and deluded than usual, I suppose it’s probably a price worth paying.

Of course, there’s been quite a bit of revisionist opinion since CoViD is no longer the pressing issue it was and we have more information available….. Those kind of ‘benefit of hindsight’ experts will always raise their heads and bless everyone with their wisdom after the event.
Click to expand...

No that’s a completely wrong characterisation of it. It wasn’t experts vs crackpots. It was experts vs experts.
 
Malced said:
No that’s a completely wrong characterisation of it. It wasn’t experts vs crackpots. It was experts vs experts.
Click to expand...
Was it?

It’s that long ago, I’m struggling to remember. Would you be able to recall who the experts who were denied coverage of their opinions? I’d be interested to have a read about it 👍
 
I just replaced my diesel with an electric car and will never go back. There are many positives, especially to the environment and the carbon in the atmosphere (that was my motivation and researched extensively both here and in the US). Its great charging at home (its simple and easy) and infrastructure is generally good (although Blackpool is really poor). You do need to plan your journeys a bit more (although I am driving to Salzburg and then Islay in a few weeks). My last 28 miles after a game is through some of the most isolated moors in England and I cannot afford to run out of charge, so I do keep it well charged. The charge time is a frustration initially but the Tesla superchargers are really fast. By the time you have gone to the loo and maybe purchased a coffee its done. At the moment distance on a full charge is excellent but it was worse in the colder months. The savings on the cost of running are enormous (fuel / tax / servicing / free Tesla charging offer). The ironic thing is that the purchase was great value for a Tesla compared to a diesel comparison
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Was it?

It’s that long ago, I’m struggling to remember. Would you be able to recall who the experts who were denied coverage of their opinions? I’d be interested to have a read about it 👍
Click to expand...

You won’t read about it in the mainstream press. 🤣
You have just said words to the effect that the bbc should push the government narrative.
And now you’re challenging that they did so. Seems you’re memory loss is very short term as well as longer term.
 
Cuthbert said:
I just replaced my diesel with an electric car and will never go back. There are many positives, especially to the environment and the carbon in the atmosphere (that was my motivation and researched extensively both here and in the US). Its great charging at home (its simple and easy) and infrastructure is generally good (although Blackpool is really poor). You do need to plan your journeys a bit more (although I am driving to Salzburg and then Islay in a few weeks). My last 28 miles after a game is through some of the most isolated moors in England and I cannot afford to run out of charge, so I do keep it well charged. The charge time is a frustration initially but the Tesla superchargers are really fast. By the time you have gone to the loo and maybe purchased a coffee its done. At the moment distance on a full charge is excellent but it was worse in the colder months. The savings on the cost of running are enormous (fuel / tax / servicing / free Tesla charging offer). The ironic thing is that the purchase was great value for a Tesla compared to a diesel comparison
Click to expand...

That is consistent with most people I know who have a an EV. They love them and wouldn’t go back.
There’s less mechanical parts to go wrong e.g no clutch. So they’re cheaper to maintain.

However some say they’ve kept their diesel/petrol car to use for longer trips. They use the EV for shorter trips. Perhaps it’s a confidence thing. Or because they are concerned about charging on the go as opposed to at home.

At this stage of the transition away from petrol and diesel I suggest it’s a case of the have’s and have nots.

I’m not jealous of anyone. Good luck to hose who can afford an EV. Or who can afford to have both an EV and a petrol or diesel.

But for now, and for quite some time, for many, an EV is out of reach. Nor would they have anywhere to charge it overnight.

From my own perspective of owning a diesel taxi, when I look to replace it, the car will need to be another diesel. I can’t afford an EV. I could get a decent second hand diesel estate with low mileage for say £10k. But I can’t afford an EV at three to four times that amount. Nor does the prospect of downtime thrill me - cos if the car is sat charging, there’s less hours the car can be on the road.
 
Malced said:
You won’t read about it in the mainstream press. 🤣
You have just said words to the effect that the bbc should push the government narrative.
And now you’re challenging that they did so. Seems you’re memory loss is very short term as well as longer term.
Click to expand...
Then, I won't look on the 'Mainstream Media' although I must admit the moment I hear the phrase "Mainstream Media" these days it conjures up images of yet another victim of the conspiracy scammers.

Just point me in the direction of the 'experts' and I'll look them up .... In fact, once you give me the info, I'll create a whole new thread where we can discuss it at length, once I've had chance to decide what I think.

And just to be clear... before you go down the 'twisting my words' / strawman route like you did last time... what I said was..

"Second, in a National / International Crisis like CoViD it would be super irresponsible of the ‘state broadcaster’ to undermine the Government Policy and sow the seeds of conspiracy." ..... So I didn't say that I thought "That it should push the Government Narrative" ...

I also haven't 'challenged' anything, I've just asked you provide some evidence to allow me to investigate your claims and enhance my understanding.... It's noted that you have elected not to do so... As things stand, I'm leaning towards the lack of evidence on your part suggesting that you probably don't have any...


FWIW (I'm not sure if you watch the BBC's Parliament channel), but there is complete coverage of a whole range of things, including all manner of speeches, questions and throughout the Covid crisis, all manner of Government Policy was scrutinised in great depth.
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Then, I won't look on the 'Mainstream Media' although I must admit the moment I hear the phrase "Mainstream Media" these days it conjures up images of yet another victim of the conspiracy scammers.

Just point me in the direction of the 'experts' and I'll look them up .... In fact, once you give me the info, I'll create a whole new thread where we can discuss it at length, once I've had chance to decide what I think.

And just to be clear... before you go down the 'twisting my words' / strawman route like you did last time... what I said was..

"Second, in a National / International Crisis like CoViD it would be super irresponsible of the ‘state broadcaster’ to undermine the Government Policy and sow the seeds of conspiracy." ..... That's not "That it should push the Government Narrative" ...

I also haven't 'challenged' anything, I've just asked you provide some evidence to allow me to verify your claims.... It's noted that you have elected not to do so... As things stand, I'm leaning towards the lack of evidence on your part suggesting that you probably don't have any...


FWIW (I'm not sure if you watch the BBC's Parliament channel), but there is complete coverage of a whole range of things, including all manner of speeches, questions and throughout the Covid crisis, all manner of Government Policy was scrutinised in great depth.
Click to expand...

You paint a distorted and polarised picture i.e. the Government policy vs Conspiracy theorists. But it’s not a binary choice. There’s a whole spectrum of different opinions, including scientific, in between the two.

Your attitude is to protect the government narrative at all costs by undermining any dissenting views by calling them conspiracies. That’s absurd.

In fact you’re seemingly paranoid. You admit the mere mention of ‘Mainstream Media’, a well accepted term (used in the UK and worldwide) makes you refer to conspiracy scammers whatever that is. I’d say that not a rational response.

There’s plenty of credible surveys you can find on the internet which examine the level of trust in mainstream media across most countries. The fact the UK has a low trust level speaks volumes. It’s not a conspiracy that people feel that way. It’s what the media have created by their behaviours. A lack of trust.

It’s incredibly naive to think the government line should be promoted and followed. Governments do sometimes get things wrong, or lie or coerce for their own agendas. They may have policies borne out of the best intentions. But having blind faith is ridiculous and irresponsible. You may have placed all your trust in Matt Hancock and hung off every word he uttered, but I didn’t. And I said so at the time. So accusations of hindsight are wide of the mark.

There’s so many things around covid which were disputed at the time but as you say, they didn’t get much of an airing on mainstream media as it would have been so irresponsible to ‘undermine Government Policy’.

So most of that challenge and scrutiny had to instead be done online and by other media channels.

You suggest the fact the covid was debated in the Commons, and that such debates are screened on BBC parliament, demonstrates that the media such as the BBC didn’t only give the government narrative. Well which is it? Did they give the government line or did they undermine it ?

But it’s a ridiculous case for the defence. What’s reported on the news, the headlines, the key messages etc., is a million miles away from the detail of a parliamentary debate. And the news is seen by many millions, whereas the latter is seen by far fewer.

Furthermore, and it’s probably your fading memory, but many government covid policies were not at all debated. Even members of the Conservative Party complained that there was a small group including Hancock, Whitty et al, who made all the decisions, and implemented them, without the prior scrutiny of Parliament, and without a prior vote.

So you’re wrong on so many counts. You try to stamp down on differences by labelling those who have them as conspiracy theorists. You say it’s irresponsible to veer away from the official line, but you say the BBC did by err screening debates, of which many didn’t even happen.

I’m conscious this thread isn’t about covid. Nor do I want to do the whole covid thing again. If you want to you can go back to the covid threads and type away.
 
Malced said:
You paint a distorted and polarised picture i.e. the Government policy vs Conspiracy theorists. But it’s not a binary choice. There’s a whole spectrum of different opinions, including scientific, in between the two.

Your attitude is to protect the government narrative at all costs by undermining any dissenting views by calling them conspiracies. That’s absurd.

In fact you’re seemingly paranoid. You admit the mere mention of ‘Mainstream Media’, a well accepted term (used in the UK and worldwide) makes you refer to conspiracy scammers whatever that is. I’d say that not a rational response.

There’s plenty of credible surveys you can find on the internet which examine the level of trust in mainstream media across most countries. The fact the UK has a low trust level speaks volumes. It’s not a conspiracy that people feel that way. It’s what the media have created by their behaviours. A lack of trust.

It’s incredibly naive to think the government line should be promoted and followed. Governments do sometimes get things wrong, or lie or coerce for their own agendas. They may have policies borne out of the best intentions. But having blind faith is ridiculous and irresponsible. You may have placed all your trust in Matt Hancock and hung off every word he uttered, but I didn’t. And I said so at the time. So accusations of hindsight are wide of the mark.

There’s so many things around covid which were disputed at the time but as you say, they didn’t get much of an airing on mainstream media as it would have been so irresponsible to ‘undermine Government Policy’.

So most of that challenge and scrutiny had to instead be done online and by other media channels.

You suggest the fact the covid was debated in the Commons, and that such debates are screened on BBC parliament, demonstrates that the media such as the BBC did in fact not just give the government narrative. Well which is it? Did they give the government line or did they undermine it ?

But it’s a ridiculous case for the defence. What’s reported on the news, the headlines, the keg messages etc., is a million miles away from the details of a parliamentary debate. And the news is seen by many million, whereas the latter is not.

Furthermore, and it’s probably your fading memory, but many government covid policies were not at all debated. Even members of the Conservative Party complained that there was a small group including Hancock, Whitty et al, who made all the decisions, and implemented them, without the prior scrutiny of Parliament.

So you’re wrong on so many counts. You try to stand down on differences by labelling those who have them as conspiracy theorists. You say it’s irresponsible to veer away from the offices line but you say the BBC did by err filming debates, of which many didn’t even happen.

I’m conscious this thread isn’t about covid. Nor do I want to do the whole covid thing again. If you want to you can go back to the covid threads and type away.
Click to expand...
I've not painted any picture... I just made a statement and then asked you to point me in the direction of the 'experts' so that I could do some research and try to educate myself.

That's a rather longwinded way of not providing any evidence by the way. Ah Well!

Like yoiu say, You're conscious that you've taken the thread off on a tangent, so best to conveniently exit, now you've been asked to evidence your claims 😂

Classic AVFTT!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top