That number will have little basis in reality, as it has too many variables to come up with it, and they can't be included in the algorithm. They can also change the factors they do include, pretty much as they do with the general figures.
Birch services (M62) are curently having new substations built to cope with the extra power demand of EVs, every station in the country will have to do this and the national grid will have to cope with the demand. Speaking of service stations, i assume that most people on here have stopped at one for food, a drink or maybe a piss or all three reasons. Think about what you have seen on the forecourt, fuel pumps with hundreds (maybe even thousands) of vehicles pulling up to them and taking around 10 mins to top up and continue the journy. Now imagine that same number of EVs pulling in and taking at least an hour to charge, how many chargers would you need and how much space (farmland) would you need to buy up to accomodate them, don't forget lorries need fuel too.
It's to con idiots into a virtual World like a computer game, where they get punished or rewarded by Government sanctioned perceived "choices". Every aspect of our human living experience crunched down into data . Social credit
The argument is that the EV's somehow won't need to fuel up as often, yet despite having a much longer range, most people only use service station petrol as an absolute last resort, which suggests the numbers needing to fuel at such places are liable to be similar.
Have a think about how ineffective national computerised systems have been up to now, and decide if you think they're capable of running a scheme along the lines you're suggesting, and that's before you add in the human and political conflicts that will be included.
Someone has already realised that EVs are deadin the water, earlier this year Shell were granted a licence to develope a large Hydrogen Cell plant in the UK, that will end up being the future of transport as the space, infrastructure and engine building capacity is already there. it will be about as "carbon friendly" as EVs and possibly more so. Certainly less toxic to the Earth.
Rashid Sanook's father in law sold the operating system digital I.D social credit to both China & India
It's not really either/or, and hydrogen is far from green to produce, and is a very inefficient use of energy.
Vehicle batteries are nowhere near ready to go yet. I work on fork lift trucks (funnily enough always ahead of vehicle manufacturers) and have been working on Li on batteries (and chargers) for a while. They are ****e. The manufacturers engineers no nothing about them (or the chargers) and every time a fault occurs with one the battery has to be transported back to the manufacturing plant (this includes either transporting the full vehicle or placing the battery in a steel box bolted to a heavy base plate (one of my customers has already had to send two trucks back to Germany and only two years old). The batteries have a memory which can be accessed with a laptop (which you can't buy) and in both cases the customer was told his warrenty was void because (various) the amount of charges was too many, the battery hadn't been fully discharged at least once in every four week period, the charge had been "interupted" on several occasions. When these people manufacture and sell these trucks they no how they are used yet give no tuition on new protocals required to stop the battery failing, do you think car manufacturers are giving tuition to every car driver or are they just relying on the internal memory of the battery to void any warrenty?
No energy is Green to produce, the most efficient and green is probably Hydro electricity (Atomic next) but power will always come at a price. The problem is to balance it with modern life and the planet.
If you buy a Tesla you need to pay for all your upgrades which cost actual money to modify the cars performance. When you sell it all the upgrades are reset to factory settings. You basically rent the service like Amazon or EE
Anything that claims to be smart like a doorbell thermostat or car is a money making surveillance tool
You gone quiet sweety, are you waiting for back-up to find relevant memes? You're better than that and usully have a reasonable opinion of your own so show it Some of us can be wrong (not me obviously) but there is no shame in admitting that. Conversly if you are convinced you are right stick to your guns and prove it. Memes not acceptable as proof because they are sombody elses words who you know **** all about and could well be taking the piss out of you by winding you up
Kid in my class was called Basil Burgess. Could never work out why fifteen of him were heading for the coast. Especially as we already lived there.
I posted this a while back and it’s worth a read, unless of course you are dumb who will just throw another lump of coal on his fire and claim that he’s an expert in renewable energy sources. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-hydrogen-strategy
I notice dopey has chucked in a link to the Government white paper again, without demonstrating their understanding of the implications or the detail within it. If he did understand it, he wouldn't have chosen an ironic comment about coal to try to bluff his way through. The biggest fools are often the ones that don't realise that they are idiots. Taking just a few of the issues it contains, the production methods include a version of the process used to produce towns gas, which was predominantly hydrogen, and was replaced as it was seen as not just a dirty product, but a dirty process, and has left a legacy of contaminated sites. Okay the newer version will be cleaner, but it is still dirty as well as resource and energy intensive. Another key measure in the white paper is the proposal for blending. This is the addition of hydrogen to the natural gas network. Due to the properties of the gas, this means that a larger volume will be required, yet the larger volume will actually contain less energy and be more costly to produce and to burn and increase local nitrogen dioxide emissions. It is effectively a scheme to produce a lesser product for a higher cost, and it is little surprise that it is the gas network owners that have pushed this or that they have met strong resistance to getting it trialed in various places. There are also implications for agriculture, as they are currently one of the biggest consumers due to the use in fertiliser etc. The increased demand will have a knock on impact for food prices and quality. There are many other flaws that can be flagged in various aspects of that white paper, not just the issue they thought they were responding to when dopey posted it in clear ignorance of the content.
Despite repeatedly showing they're pretty much clueless on the topic, and as dopey bristles at the thought I may actually have some understanding, here's a link to the views of some other people on the paper he lays such store by, despite avoiding any comment on the detail himself. It's interesting to note that their whole argument is centred on their trust of this tory government. Alex Lee, a Friends of the Earth Scotland climate campaigner, described the government’s rush to embrace hydrogen as “foolish”. “Green hydrogen made from renewables is inefficient and more expensive than existing renewable technologies like electric heat pumps for our homes and electrifying public transport systems. Blue hydrogen from fossil fuels is just another oil industry trick to keep us locked into fossil fuels with the promise of dubious carbon capture and storage technology.” “The UK’s hydrogen strategy, in its current form, simply does not add up,” said Arjun Flora, from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). “We are already struggling to meet renewables growth targets and our reliance on fossil gas is crippling the economy. This strategy will make both problems worse, at the expense of UK households and taxpayers.” The UK currently has around 14GW of offshore wind, and is aiming for 50GW of offshore wind by 2030 (a target experts are already warning the UK is likely to miss). If the UK meets its 10GW hydrogen ambition with green hydrogen production, the hydrogen production would consume around 50 per cent of offshore wind capacity. But there are serious doubts whether blue hydrogen can be part of a truly low-carbon energy strategy by 2030. This is because no blue hydrogen projects exist at scale today, while trial projects that currently exist have not managed to capture more than 50 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced. The UK’s definition of “low-carbon hydrogen” is equivalent to around 75 per cent of emissions being captured; but for blue hydrogen to be legitimately low carbon, well over 90 per cent of emissions must be captured. Analysis shared with Spotlight by Frederick Andre Wessel, from the consultancy Rystad, shows that 5GW of blue hydrogen capacity could produce 1.3 million tonnes of hydrogen annually. For this to be legitimately low carbon, it would in turn likely require more than 10 million tonnes of CO2 to be captured, according to Wessel, which is equivalent to around a quarter of the entire volume of CO2 captured globally by CCS in 2022. https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/sustainability/energy/2023/03/uk-hydrogen-strategy-does-not-add-up#:~:text=But there are serious doubts,of the carbon dioxide produced.
