Literal tin foil hat wearers.

poprock wrote:

There is so, so much stupidity in the world. Especially America. This is what we’re up against, people. US town rejects solar panels amid fears they “suck energy from the sun” and cause cancer Some choice ‘highlights’:

… one local man, Bobby Mann, said solar farms would suck up all the energy from the sun … Jane Mann, a retired science teacher, said she was concerned the panels would prevent plants in the area from photosynthesizing, stopping them from growing … She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer.

I'm not making a judgement on the level of people's credulity and/or ignorance on various issues. But I do think it's worth digging into stories which appear to be a little too crazy to be real.

The Independent report of the town hall meeting focuses on the one dumb person who attended - Jane Mann, retired science teacher - who admittedly said dumb things (solar energy being sucked up by cancer-causing panels).

But most of the other objections focused on what seem to me to be legitimate concerns. The town is typical small-town, dying slowly due to interstate highway and lack of local jobs. The re-zoning proposed changing from manufacturing use to energy use - preventing this land to be used by a potential small factory or similar, and providing actual jobs. Most people complained that a) this would drive further nail in the town's coffin and b) would further lower property prices (ie: the value / benefit of moving to the town would be lowered, demand for houses lower, trapping locals).

Now, you can argue that someone coming along and building a factory in the town is unlikely, but this would remove that possibility totally, and I probably would have voted similarly.

You’re dead right Funk (although they focused on two people saying dumb things, not one), but I’ll freely admit that I just enjoyed jumping on the Indy’s bandwagon and laughing at the stoopid Americans on this occasion.

Looking at it, the bloke seemed to mostly compare the solar farms to the building of the interstate and the effect that had on the town (see Pixars Cars). Since we only have select quotes, I wonder if the suck up all the energy from the sun comment was actually tongue in cheek criticism and not regular stupidity.

We all have the ability to eat other humans. It's just those stupid laws they have stopping us.

Facewon wrote:

https://youtu.be/t0x46-enxsA

Potholer with the summary.

Can't stress enough how good this is from potholer. Also recommended purely for those who like their summaries in video form. It's about 30 mins and covers the major points of fact and the Murdoch coverage so well.

No offence but you are no astrologer mate.

I'm only joking, woman trying to block it here is an astrologer.

I do worry about being a smartarse sometimes, though. I do need to called out for it now and then.

My job is basically to learn stuff, figure out simpler and more persuasive ways of explaining it, and then tell people that they have to start talking about it my way.

It’s a brilliant skill to have professionally, but can really get me in trouble with the wife when I accidentally do it at home.

GooberTheHat wrote:

Who do you get a job like that? I'd love that. That industry would really benefit from someone like me 

This morning the UK Gov announced that they’re bringing forward their plan to ban all sales of new petrol and diesel cars to 2035. And that they’re now including hybrids as well. So from 2035 all new cars sold in the UK must be pure electric or hydrogen fuelled.

Because I follow a lot of car people on Twitter, this has really brought out the crazies (a bunch of them have already used it as a prompt to start denying climate change exists, FFS). There’s no way I’m ready for the hassle of discussing it over there. So I thought I’d try here.

Some things that deserve chat, in my opinion:

• Is 15 years from now a realistic timescale?
• Why no funding or plans for electricity infrastructure alongside this?
• And new power plants?
• Why no comment on the ending of current subsidies for electric car buyers (coming up in about 60 days)?

Now, I get that Tory philosophy decrees that all of those things (and more) are problems for the free market to solve. Tories make laws to stimulate corporate investment. They don’t provide any answers themselves.

And I get that this isn’t a ‘ban’ on traditional cars. Despite the emotive language of most reports making it feel that way. It’s a ruling on what new cars can and can’t be. So you can buy a petrol car in 2034 and drive it for as many years as you can still buy petrol.

But this plan strikes me as yet another policy that will hit the poorer end of the population a lot harder than the richer end. Electricity prices will rise pretty soon if the network operators need to put all the investment in themselves to build power stations and roll out charging networks this quickly. Existing petrol and diesel cars are going to massively lose value – for many non-homeowners their car is their single biggest asset/investment. Speaking of which, you’re in danger of encouraging a long-term debt problem by pushing ‘ordinary’ (ie. not rich) people towards lease/hire agreements as the only way to afford an EV or fuel cell car.

And I think these proposals are being promoted badly. Shifting from petrol/diesel to electric/hydrogen improves air quality. Reduces vehicle emissions. It doesn’t combat climate change or reduce overall carbon footprint. The bigger picture has to include generating all the electricity and the environmental cost of building the new cars, batteries, generators, etc.

I dunno. I do understand that at some point us petrolheads have to let go. I don’t like electric cars as a long-term solution, but I think there does need to be an alternative. Maybe hydrogen is the thing. And I also understand that the Government has a responsibility to legislate and push this transition. But this feels poorly considered to me. I don’t think the desired products (cars), infrastructure (chargers), or transition method (funding etc) are in place to make this realistic within 15 years. I mean, most of the cars I’ve ever owned have been older than that. Some twice as old. You can’t rush changes in the way you legislate on transport …

I’m working with some large-scale electrical engineering companies at the moment. People who actually do design and build the infrastructure. They’re already getting contracts to install EV charging networks, but so far they’re all local council projects – for new bus fleets, for example. There’s no joined-up planning going on at all, and no thinking about a publicly-usable network.

poprock wrote:

I’m working with some large-scale electrical engineering companies at the moment. People who actually do design and build the infrastructure. They’re already getting contracts to install EV charging networks, but so far they’re all local council projects – for new bus fleets, for example. There’s no joined-up planning going on at all.

Does not shock me. The Government will make noises about it, but won't commit to actually do anything about it. It's just hoping that it happens on an ad hoc basis.

I wonder if this gives a gap in the market for someone who owns existing car park infrastructure to convert to EV charging. One thing I read was that when it's widespread, you could actually use charging electric vehicles as a way of evening out supply for the National Grid.

The only thing I'll add is that, with sufficient investment, Tesla has come out of nowhere to being an almost viable retailer of exclusively electric cars in under 15 years.

If the large car companies are forced into investment, which to some extent Tesla has contributed, then replacing fleets with electric or another fuel like hydrogen is absolutely possible in 15 years. It's not as if we're at a standing start - all major and most minor manufacturers have roadmaps towards full electrification and some maintain investment and research into hydrogen.

Regarding the electricity supply (or hydrogen supply chain) - I would say any announcement about this that doesn't explicitly reference how people will actually charge their cars (or fill them at the hydrogen pump) is not worth the breath taken to read if out. It's rendered meaningless I think.

Regarding the cost to consumers, here I do have some faith that market forces (via economies of scale and competition, and supply increase forced by legislation) will indeed drive prices down, and for some time the second hand market will provide cheap cars for those that need them.

Sufficient investment and time = absolutely new battery tech, new charging tech. Ranges will continue to increase, 3rd parties can already swap out a Tesla battery pack for spares in no time at all at fraction of cost of 1st party, charging will continue to get faster.

The biggest problem remains infrastructure. If 20% of the population in the next 5 years go electric, can the grid cope?