Are we being forced to go electric?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
As I said, it doesn't happen in quantities anything like claimed in much of the literature,
Please quote the literature you say is claiming false levels of recycling
and still doesn't make them 'green' even compared to ICE,
Opinion posited as fact
and it's still the poor subsidising the wealthier.
Yes, a very valid criticism
 

Chislenko

Veteran
Awful stuff but I believe the fatality was in the Range Rover and the passenger is in a critical condition. How bloody fast was the RR driving ?

Yes, you have to have been going at some speed to end up where they did. Just goes to show how vulnerable we are on a bike when there are people like this driving two ton killing machines!!
 

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
I'm not pro ICE, or anti EV, I just think that there is a lot of one eyed logic being pushed to support a mad dash for EV's and against fossil fuels, that doesn't take full account of all of the issues. That is quite liable to lead to a poor solution, and ignores the financial reality of many people.

Yes, I agree.

I also see many people in this thread who make their argument against EVs which are, frankly, not factual.

Arguments against EVs are, IMO, (i) Equity - the subsidy of the rich you refer to; (2) embedding infrastructure which is not sustainable - doing everything by car; (3) Embedding a culture which mitigates against health and wellbeing - active transport.

The argument is NOT that EVs net emit more than ICE cars. They don't.
 

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
Do you really think I'm going to dig out articles for you to claim they're not representative? I've played this game too many times to fall for that old gag. :laugh:

It's not a gag.

You're claiming something here, but actually it's not true at all. Now you're hiding from that fact.
 
Yes, I agree.

I also see many people in this thread who make their argument against EVs which are, frankly, not factual.

Arguments against EVs are, IMO, (i) Equity - the subsidy of the rich you refer to; (2) embedding infrastructure which is not sustainable - doing everything by car; (3) Embedding a culture which mitigates against health and wellbeing - active transport.

The argument is NOT that EVs net emit more than ICE cars. They don't.

I agree right up to your last point, which is a bit of a play on words, as it's about the total environmental impact rather than simply emissions (which themselves are debatable if you consider the issues with ozone and particulate) and that should include even the impact of the infrastructure required, such as the new trenches and cables to get the power from the sea turbines to places it can be used.
 

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
Awful stuff but I believe the fatality was in the Range Rover and the passenger is in a critical condition. How bloody fast was the RR driving ?

What happened? Fatality cause by an ICE car? BAN THEM!!!

[this is a joke, lest anyone take me seriously, god forbid]
 

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
I agree right up to your last point, which is a bit of a play on words, as it's about the total environmental impact rather than simply emissions (which themselves are debatable if you consider the issues with ozone and particulate) and that should include even the impact of the infrastructure required, such as the new trenches and cables to get the power from the sea turbines to places it can be used.

Of course, the lifecycle impact should be considered.

Everything I've seen on this is clear that the lifecycle impact of EVs from an emissions perspective is far less than ICE cars.

From a "total environmental impact", such analyses are far harder to do - how do you define such? But I've seen nothing which suggests anything other than a net positive. If you have something reputable, please post it.
 

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
Did someone mention opinion dressed as fact? :okay:

You're avoiding the issue: You made a very specific claim that the literature on recycling rates is false. Unless you just made it up, you *must* have a source for it.

You obfuscate rather than respond.

Anyone would conclude you're just making things up to suit your preferred conclusion.
 
You're avoiding the issue: You made a very specific claim that the literature on recycling rates is false. Unless you just made it up, you *must* have a source for it.

You obfuscate rather than respond.

Anyone would conclude you're just making things up to suit your preferred conclusion.

'The literature' :laugh:

I'm happy to have a conversation, but I just smile and walk away from silly things shoddily dressed up as meaningful questions. They smack of someone that doesn't actually want to know. :hello:

You will no doubt claim this as a 'success', so enjoy. :okay:
 

FishFright

More wheels than sense
'The literature' :laugh:

I'm happy to have a conversation, but I just smile and walk away from silly things shoddily dressed up as meaningful questions. They smack of someone that doesn't actually want to know. :hello:

You will no doubt claim this as a 'success', so enjoy. :okay:

Am I correct that you offer zero evidence for the recycling rates ?
 
I do wonder how much petrol money is put into rubbishing renewables.
Just look at how neat it is - solar panels on the roof and an EV.

According to the calculator from just an average solar panel installation - I could power my EV for about 10,000 miles.

That's more than the average mileage in the UK !

I really must get my finger out and look into this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom