|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 27, 2023 16:37:38 GMT
LOL - another London centric poster. London is not the whole country and areas outside of it have vastly different needs and circumstances. We already have daft brushes in Whitehall who think that the rest of the country is just like London - we don't need them on this forum. LOl. It said London and other major cities. You were wrong about cars being forced on people now you would rather dodge than courteously admit your error. London is not the entire country - Horses have never been banned in Dorset. stop making a fool of yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 27, 2023 16:42:44 GMT
if only.. of course only this week the subsidy for wind power had to be increased by 2/3rds.. And is still cheaper than Gas. If only.. "Ministers have agreed to raise the starting price of the government’s next auction for offshore wind subsidies by around two-thirds to £73 per megawatt hour"Current spot price for Gas is £38...
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 27, 2023 19:41:57 GMT
LOl. It said London and other major cities. You were wrong about cars being forced on people now you would rather dodge than courteously admit your error. London is not the entire country - Horses have never been banned in Dorset. stop making a fool of yourself. Hardly anyone lived in Dorset in 1800, scattered rural farms. They didn't hardly have cars. London city had 6 times Dorset's population. But keep digging, a tunnel to New Zealand would be very handy.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 27, 2023 20:11:15 GMT
London is not the entire country - Horses have never been banned in Dorset. stop making a fool of yourself. Hardly anyone lived in Dorset in 1800, scattered rural farms. They didn't hardly have cars. London city had 6 times Dorset's population. But keep digging, a tunnel to New Zealand would be very handy. Fairly idyllic lifestyle compared with London according to Thomas Hardy and Charles Dickens respectively.
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Nov 27, 2023 20:24:26 GMT
Fairly idyllic lifestyle compared with London according to Thomas Hardy.. Aside from the exploitation, insanity, suicides, murders, grinding poverty, and occasional rapes, of course. Love me some Hardy, but his Wessex was a pretty long way from "idyllic"!
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 27, 2023 20:24:40 GMT
Hardly anyone lived in Dorset in 1800, scattered rural farms. They didn't hardly have cars. London city had 6 times Dorset's population. But keep digging, a tunnel to New Zealand would be very handy. Fairly idyllic lifestyle compared with London according to Thomas Hardy and Charles Dickens respectively. Yes I suppose, though it was more poverty and servitude than county folk and may days.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 27, 2023 20:30:49 GMT
Fairly idyllic lifestyle compared with London according to Thomas Hardy.. Aside from the exploitation, insanity, suicides, murders, grinding poverty, and occasional rapes, of course. Love me some Hardy, but his Wessex was a pretty long way from "idyllic"! There is also a lighter side compared with Dickens London.
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Nov 27, 2023 20:42:21 GMT
True enough. Hardy wrote some pretty funny stories, too.
His correspondence also shows a sharp (and quite subversive) sense of humour.
They were writing for different readerships, of course. Hardy was the Highbrow Author, selling fewer books, but to a pretty literate audience. Dickens was the greatest POPULAR storyteller we've had yet. Crowd pleasing page turners published as serials in big name magazines - and a control of comedy/tragedy, pathos/bathos that no one else has ever come close to.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 27, 2023 22:38:26 GMT
Fairly idyllic lifestyle compared with London according to Thomas Hardy.. Aside from the exploitation, insanity, suicides, murders, grinding poverty, and occasional rapes, of course. Love me some Hardy, but his Wessex was a pretty long way from "idyllic"! Sorry? - are you trying to suggest that 'White Privilege' didn't exist... You have just destroyed a whole industry...
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Nov 27, 2023 23:06:20 GMT
Sorry? - are you trying to suggest that 'White Privilege' didn't exist... You never know - someday, some people here might even learn the actual meaning of "White Privilege". (And this is neither the time nor the place. Google is your friend..)
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 27, 2023 23:35:23 GMT
Sorry? - are you trying to suggest that 'White Privilege' didn't exist... You never know - someday, some people here might even learn the actual meaning of "White Privilege". (And this is neither the time nor the place. Google is your friend..) Whatever version you want to apply , it’s still a lie . The word ‘ white ‘ followed by ‘ privilege’ is a bit of a clue though . Maybe one day it will be replaced by’white elite privilege’ . Then it might become something other than a meaningless racist falsity.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 28, 2023 7:42:50 GMT
You never know - someday, some people here might even learn the actual meaning of "White Privilege". (And this is neither the time nor the place. Google is your friend..) Whatever version you want to apply , it’s still a lie . The word ‘ white ‘ followed by ‘ privilege’ is a bit of a clue though . Maybe one day it will be replaced by’white elite privilege’ . Then it might become something other than a meaningless racist falsity. Maybe a thread of its own, here are one or two to set you off, David Cameron, Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer and of course the whole royal family.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 28, 2023 7:56:46 GMT
You never know - someday, some people here might even learn the actual meaning of "White Privilege". (And this is neither the time nor the place. Google is your friend..) Whatever version you want to apply , it’s still a lie . The word ‘ white ‘ followed by ‘ privilege’ is a bit of a clue though . Maybe one day it will be replaced by’white elite privilege’ . Then it might become something other than a meaningless racist falsity. I agree with this statement. I'm pretty sure the average man in the 18th century made nothing from slavery. I'm equally sure those you got rich from slavery did not share their wealth with the white peoples back home.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 28, 2023 8:43:20 GMT
It depends on how green the energy was that was used to produce each car, which varies by country. The fact is that BEVs require vastly more energy to build (because of the battery mainly) so it starts off at a disadvantage relative to the petrol car - about 30k miles in the UK. So it depends on how many miles you do in the car before it's scrapped. In general BEVs are low mileage cars (for obvious reasons) and are likely to get scrapped earlier than petrol cars (because of obsolescence or battery problems, which can occur from even mild knocks), which means that it's pretty dubious that the BEV will even generate less CO2 in its lifetime - certainly not 20 times less. In Tim Berners-lee's book on this stuff (net zero etc) he reckoned that the cleanest car was a petrol car. BTW CO2 is not "pollution". If you make up figures about BEV's being scrapped after 30,000 miles you can get to the same as ICE. Total bollox of course, but you can do it, Co2 is the gas we are trying to stop. If not we wouldn't be bothering to scrap ICE vehicles. And surely you mean Mike Berners Lee, who said. Comparing keeping your old diesel car until it fails as favourable to buying a new electric vehicle. Not what you said at all. Eh? He says: " For example the footprints of a new car lie between 5 tonnes CO2e (Citroen C1) and 35 tonnes CO2e (Land Rover Discovery). There is no reason to believe that the embodied emissions of an electric car will be substantially less than those"
He's saying that CO2 emissions of electric cars over the course of their life is not likely to be less than those of a petrol car. Considering the environmental damage that the manufacture of their batteries involves, the big increase in tyre rubber pollution (which is real pollution) because of their extra weight and the vast amount of infrastructure that needs to be developed to support electric cars it seems pretty obvious to any rational person that BEVs can't be expected to cut CO2 emissions at all.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 28, 2023 11:28:09 GMT
If you make up figures about BEV's being scrapped after 30,000 miles you can get to the same as ICE. Total bollox of course, but you can do it, Co2 is the gas we are trying to stop. If not we wouldn't be bothering to scrap ICE vehicles. And surely you mean Mike Berners Lee, who said. Comparing keeping your old diesel car until it fails as favourable to buying a new electric vehicle. Not what you said at all. Eh? He says: " For example the footprints of a new car lie between 5 tonnes CO2e (Citroen C1) and 35 tonnes CO2e (Land Rover Discovery). There is no reason to believe that the embodied emissions of an electric car will be substantially less than those"
He's saying that CO2 emissions of electric cars over the course of their life is not likely to be less than those of a petrol car. Considering the environmental damage that the manufacture of their batteries involves, the big increase in tyre rubber pollution (which is real pollution) because of their extra weight and the vast amount of infrastructure that needs to be developed to support electric cars it seems pretty obvious to any rational person that BEVs can't be expected to cut CO2 emissions at all. That is the amount involved in manufacture, not the life of the vehicle. Which is why he says; until they become part of a circular economy, the batteries in an electric car may increase the emissions. Now quote me where he says "that CO2 emissions of electric cars over the course of their life is not likely to be less than those of a petrol car." The figures speak for themselves. EV. Co2 Manufacture inc battery circa 16 tonnes Annual emissions 3.9 tonnes x 10 years (life)=39 tonnes. Total 55 tonnes ICE. Co2 Manufacture circa 12 tonnes. Annual emissions 11.4 tonnes x 10 years (life) = 114 tonnes. Total 128 tonnes. Try and bend those numbers to your will.
|
|