|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 1, 2024 15:17:28 GMT
Pac's point was about ICE automobiles, not fridges. An ICE automobile is a competitor / alternative technology to a BEV automobile. Hence the need for a ban - that is, to prevent or blunt what could reasonably be seen as its likely consequence of that competition. That supposes the coming ban on ICE cars and vans is entirely to promote BEVs.
What could reasonably be seen as the likely consequence of competition between ICE and electric powered vehicles? And who would be the losers, and in what way, and why...?
No. It supposes that the ban on the sale of the technology will have the effect of promoting BEV at the expense of the availability and development of iCE (which is reasonable) That electric vehicles would enjoy an initial surge of interest, followed by disinterest and return to ice - when the practical problems became a pain in the neck rather than a novelty. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 1, 2024 15:24:36 GMT
Yes - obsolescence through government diktat. This really is the only technological 'advance' where we have ended up with a product that is worse than the one it replaced. So we agree that nothing is currently banned, and your antipathy to EVs is based on info you've been fed.
I've had two BMW X5 diesels. I liked them and if ICE vehicles were a sensible option for the future, I'd still be looking for something similar.
But as it is, I have also experienced both hybrid and fully electric cars and enjoy the quiet, smooth power and rapid unfussy acceleration that electric motors give. So I think they are the future, and I am expecting my motoring over the next decades to be EV and battery based...
Alternative views verboten.. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 1, 2024 15:29:32 GMT
..and this supports his stated point entirely. That the ban is intended to create a forced obsolescence of a competing and superior technologyMeanwhile, you continue to pretend he said something he did not. As we're going to get nowhere with your obsessive blindness to what was posted, let's try another tack: why is an ICE "a competing and superior technology" to an electric motor? ICE replaced electric motors in vehicles around a 100 years ago precisely because they were a competing and suprerior technology. However we are now being forced back to electric motors not because they are a superior and competing technology but simply by government diktat - you will not be allowed to purchase anything else. It's like when people changed from Blackberrys to Iphones because they were better and now the government telling us that Iphones are banned and we all have to change back to Blackberrys. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 1, 2024 15:35:15 GMT
That supposes the coming ban on ICE cars and vans is entirely to promote BEVs.
What could reasonably be seen as the likely consequence of competition between ICE and electric powered vehicles? And who would be the losers, and in what way, and why...?
No. It supposes that the ban on the sale of the technology will have the effect of promoting BEV at the expense of the availability and development of iCE (which is reasonable) That electric vehicles would enjoy an initial surge of interest, followed by disinterest and return to ice - when the practical problems became a pain in the neck rather than a novelty. I don't see who your scenario is supposedly benefitting — who's getting the money? Are there any backhanders being paid? Why would any government disrupt the motor industry and the oil industry with no foreseeable payoff?
Do you think it's because governments have bought the idea that hordes of fossil fuel burning machines, rushing round the country to congregate to make life-shortening inner city pollution and global warming a reality, are an existential threat...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 1, 2024 15:39:17 GMT
EV's will only ever be a niche product in global terms - they are totally unsuitable for vast areas of the planet. Africa, South America, Central America, large swathes of North America, much of Asia and Australia will never be a major customer for EV's.
So exactly how much effect on global warming will there be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 1, 2024 15:50:36 GMT
No. It supposes that the ban on the sale of the technology will have the effect of promoting BEV at the expense of the availability and development of iCE (which is reasonable) That electric vehicles would enjoy an initial surge of interest, followed by disinterest and return to ice - when the practical problems became a pain in the neck rather than a novelty. I don't see who your scenario is supposedly benefitting — who's getting the money? Are there any backhanders being paid? Why would any government disrupt the motor industry and the oil industry with no foreseeable payoff?
Do you think it's because governments have bought the idea that hordes of fossil fuel burning machines, rushing round the country to congregate to make life-shortening inner city pollution and global warming a reality, are an existential threat...?
You have completely wandered away from the point of conversation. If EV cars were capable of out-competing ICE on functionality and convenience, then ICE would be supplanted naturally and no ban would be 'needed'. The conversation came from you attempting to pretend that there is something wrong with this reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 1, 2024 16:17:30 GMT
I don't see who your scenario is supposedly benefitting — who's getting the money? Are there any backhanders being paid? Why would any government disrupt the motor industry and the oil industry with no foreseeable payoff?
Do you think it's because governments have bought the idea that hordes of fossil fuel burning machines, rushing round the country to congregate to make life-shortening inner city pollution and global warming a reality, are an existential threat...?
You have no completely wandered away from the point of conversation. If EVS cars were capable of out-competing ICE on functionality and convenience, then ICE would be supplanted naturally and no ban would be 'needed'. The conversation came from you attempting to pretend that there is something wrong with this reasoning. I am trying to understand the reasoning of you and others that think transferring the motive power of cars and vans from ICE to electric motors will be so bad.
I can only surmise it's similar mindsets to those that kept the railways using steam well into the sixties, with the result Britain lost skills in the rail sector that it's still not regained...
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 1, 2024 16:45:01 GMT
You have no completely wandered away from the point of conversation. If EVS cars were capable of out-competing ICE on functionality and convenience, then ICE would be supplanted naturally and no ban would be 'needed'. The conversation came from you attempting to pretend that there is something wrong with this reasoning. I am trying to understand the reasoning of you and others that think transferring the motive power of cars and vans from ICE to electric motors will be so bad.
To place the same argument before you once again - if the technology were actually advantageous, you wouldn't need forced obsolescence for the transfer to happen. Without such a diktat, the only thing that would stop EVS quickly replacing IC would be functional disadvantages over ICE - which they have in spades. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 1, 2024 17:31:48 GMT
You have no completely wandered away from the point of conversation. If EVS cars were capable of out-competing ICE on functionality and convenience, then ICE would be supplanted naturally and no ban would be 'needed'. The conversation came from you attempting to pretend that there is something wrong with this reasoning. I am trying to understand the reasoning of you and others that think transferring the motive power of cars and vans from ICE to electric motors will be so bad.
I can only surmise it's similar mindsets to those that kept the railways using steam well into the sixties, with the result Britain lost skills in the rail sector that it's still not regained...
That is nonsense - the railways started the change over to diesel before they were even nationalised. The first mainline diesel loco was introduced in 1948. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 1, 2024 18:25:40 GMT
I am trying to understand the reasoning of you and others that think transferring the motive power of cars and vans from ICE to electric motors will be so bad.
I can only surmise it's similar mindsets to those that kept the railways using steam well into the sixties, with the result Britain lost skills in the rail sector that it's still not regained...
That is nonsense - the railways started the change over to diesel before they were even nationalised. The first mainline diesel loco was introduced in 1948. The last steam loco for BR was built in 1960. Your diesel electric locos were scrapped in the mid-60’s. Others followed, but rail travel in the UK mostly remains a chore… |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 1, 2024 18:45:07 GMT
That is nonsense - the railways started the change over to diesel before they were even nationalised. The first mainline diesel loco was introduced in 1948. The last steam loco for BR was built in 1960. Your diesel electric locos were scrapped in the mid-60’s. Others followed, but rail travel in the UK mostly remains a chore… Well the last steam loco in service with BR retired in 1968 - compared with France and Germany where they soldiered on until 1975. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 1, 2024 21:53:30 GMT
I don't see who your scenario is supposedly benefitting — who's getting the money? Are there any backhanders being paid? Why would any government disrupt the motor industry and the oil industry with no foreseeable payoff?
Do you think it's because governments have bought the idea that hordes of fossil fuel burning machines, rushing round the country to congregate to make life-shortening inner city pollution and global warming a reality, are an existential threat...?
You have completely wandered away from the point of conversation. If EV cars were capable of out-competing ICE on functionality and convenience, then ICE would be supplanted naturally and no ban would be 'needed'. The conversation came from you attempting to pretend that there is something wrong with this reasoning. There is another aspect to this that rarely gets discussed.
Although Peak Oil has gone out of fashion somewhat there is still the awkward problem that the longer Western countries postpone the beginning of the time when when they start to wean them themselves off their dependency on imported oil and gas the longer they will be obliged to kow-tow to unsavoury regimes like the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. Not to mention Russia.
I don't think the argument that the urban masses in the West (or Afro-Asia for that matter) will not be able to afford means of personal transportation based on renewable energy sources eg electricity is a good reason to delay making the transition.
Let them eat cake, as the saying goes. Or at least let them take the tram.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 1, 2024 22:28:24 GMT
Peak Oil, if and when it comes about, will be a reason to move to another form of motive power. But it will be an economic and technological reason rather than a political one.
Of course it will still be more expensive but the options will have been removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 1, 2024 22:28:36 GMT
You have completely wandered away from the point of conversation. If EV cars were capable of out-competing ICE on functionality and convenience, then ICE would be supplanted naturally and no ban would be 'needed'. The conversation came from you attempting to pretend that there is something wrong with this reasoning. There is another aspect to this that rarely gets discussed.
Although Peak Oil has gone out of fashion somewhat there is still the awkward problem that the longer Western countries postpone the beginning of the time when when they start to wean them themselves off their dependency on imported oil and gas the longer they will be obliged to kow-tow to unsavoury regimes like the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. Not to mention Russia.
I don't think the argument that the urban masses in the West (or Afro-Asia for that matter) will not be able to afford means of personal transportation based on renewable energy sources eg electricity is a good reason to delay making the transition.
Let them eat cake, as the saying goes. Or at least let them take the tram.
Petrol automobiles are just one slice of a massive dependency knot. If we were to tackle this huge dependency problem rationally, we wouldn't to choose start with a change very likely to create massive inconvenience and reduce our standard of living. We would start somewhere else - so where is this start visible? The conversation was about the relative functionality of the two technologies and only arose because of the claim that BEV's were functionally equal or superior to ICE automobiles (which they are clearly not). If someone, like you have, argues that the change to a functionally inferior technology is needed strategically then that's a different kind of argument. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 2, 2024 8:07:17 GMT
You have no completely wandered away from the point of conversation. If EVS cars were capable of out-competing ICE on functionality and convenience, then ICE would be supplanted naturally and no ban would be 'needed'. The conversation came from you attempting to pretend that there is something wrong with this reasoning. I am trying to understand the reasoning of you and others that think transferring the motive power of cars and vans from ICE to electric motors will be so bad.
I can only surmise it's similar mindsets to those that kept the railways using steam well into the sixties, with the result Britain lost skills in the rail sector that it's still not regained...
You do seem to have a problem with "understanding" in general. I've told you exactly why BEVs will NEVER replace ICE cars - because the time taken to recharge them will never be fast enough to make them practical. There are many other reasons why they will never take over - like the environmental damage done by battery manufacture, the excessive weight of the cars, the huge cost of upgrading National grids, the huge cost of providing hundreds of thousands of charging points etc etc - but it's their fundamental impracticality that makes them unviable for so many people. And that will never change. But "electric" cars certainly are the future - but NOT battery powered. Hydrogen Fuel Cell is the obvious solution because it can match most of the practicality of fossil fuels with none of the pollution. Toyota already have HFC cars that can do 400 miles on a fill-up and be refuelled in 3 minutes for about the same price as an equivalent BEV. In fact Toyota have only recently begun making BEVs - they thought that HFC would be the obvious replacement for Petrol/diesel. BEVs are a dead end, while hybrids are just a stop-gap. Hybrids are by far the most polluting cars on our roads. That's why they're being banned. In fact HFCs are extremely green, unlike BEVs, because they clean the air as they drive along. The HFC requires the air it uses to be very clean so it filters it and returns clean air and water (pure enough to drink). Also, unlike BEVs, they don't generate vast amounts of rubber pollution (because they're much lighter than BEVs) - and rubber pollution is becoming one of the most dangerous pollutants, now that fossil fuel emission pollutants have been eliminated. |
|
