That's a new one , net zero 2025!! 

2 hours ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

I see Kemi Baddnoch is looking set to ditch her parties commitment to "net zero" by 2025:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3pnjyzp4o

A bit rich seeing they, under Theresa May, made it a legal commitment in the first place, but there you go.

Reform have had that in their policy document "Our Contract with You" for some time, of course.

 

Don't you mean zet zero 2050?? 

But I won't worry about net zero 2050. 

I probably will be net zero in the ground or ashes by then . Mmm how will that work? Cremations with no gas? 

8 minutes ago, iantt said:

Mmm how will that work? Cremations with no gas?

You can only get cooked on windy or sunny days 🤣

26 minutes ago, iantt said:

That's a new one , net zero 2025!! 

Don't you mean zet zero 2050?? 

Yep, predictive text strikes again. Amended!😀

Iirc the Net Zero target of 2050😀 was made a legal commitment by a Statutory Instrument amending the original Climate Change Act of 2008, so I'm not sure who did "vote" for it.

 

11 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

Iirc the Net Zero target of 2050😀 was made a legal commitment by a Statutory Instrument amending the original Climate Change Act of 2008, so I'm not sure who did "vote" for it.

 

The worst PM we ever had, Teresa May, proposed and pushed it through...

2 hours ago, StephenFord said:

The worst PM we ever had, Teresa May,

mmmmm................

True she was bad, even useless, but was she really 'worse' than Heir Starmer ?

4 minutes ago, unofix said:

mmmmm................

True she was bad, even useless, but was she really 'worse' than Heir Starmer ?

Well, as Home Secretary, she sacked 10,000 London police officers which instilled a culture of police reduction throughout the UK. She also drafted a Brexit deal that effectively cut out Northern Ireland from the UK. As well as legislating 'net zero'. I admit, it's a close call though LOL

On 11/18/2020 at 9:57 AM, Eric Bloodaxe said:

As they don't seem to have paid much attentions to logic and practicality in coming out with this policy I doubt they'll take much notice of a petition either.

I've yet to see the meat of the proposals which I would hope (probably in vain) have a role for alternative/synthetic fuels, etc. The government seem to have decided a policy, which is their role, but are heavily biased towards choosing one particular technology (electric) to meet that policy. I have this uncomfortable feeling that they may ultimately be shown to have backed the wrong horse.

 

 

I think you are right, what about hydrogen, there is not enough electricity in UK to charge all the cars

1 hour ago, Alastair Dunn said:

what about hydrogen, there is not enough electricity in UK to charge all the cars

and Hydrogen gas is made how ?

Electrolysis of water, where large amounts of electricity is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen

6 hours ago, unofix said:

and Hydrogen gas is made how ?

Electrolysis of water, where large amounts of electricity is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen

But how could that be?? Ed Millipede insists that all our energy needs will come from wind & solar. The sooner that man is removed from office, the better. His ignorance will destroy our economy.

Drill baby, drill...

8 hours ago, unofix said:

and Hydrogen gas is made how ?

As discussed several times in this thread, hydrogen production is one way to store energy when we produce too much electricity, which often occurs with windpower.

Shock! Just seen Ed on tv talking about something that sounds sensible - solar panels on roofs of hospitals and schools.  Seems a better idea than plastering them over agricultural land.

I still find it odd that there is not, as yet, a requirement for panels on new builds, where feasible.

Another shock. Just seen a new Explorer in a driveway plugged into a wall box. Other than the rows of unsold ones at my nearest big Ford dealership, this is the first one I've seen.

20 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

Another shock. Just seen a new Explorer in a driveway plugged into a wall box. Other than the rows of unsold ones at my nearest big Ford dealership, this is the first one I've seen.

I see too many😂😂

3 hours ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

I still find it odd that there is not, as yet, a requirement for panels on new builds, where feasible.

In Scotland it is almost impossible to build a new house without some form of Renewables because the Building Regulations are so tight.

The Builders usually put Solar Panels in the roof because that is easy although there are some things that can be done that are not obvious to the general public.

It may also be a requirement for Non Housing now but I'm not sure,

Maybe the England and Wales Regulations have been updated now, not sure about that , the problem is that Builders make lots of money and they give lots to Politicians, so when new legislation is proposed they squeal like pigs and things get watered down. 

40 minutes ago, Tizer said:

the problem is that Builders make lots of money and they give lots to Politicians, so when new legislation is proposed they squeal like pigs and.....

It's exactly the same with builders in China, when they complain they get told to shut up and build another coal power station 🤣

1 hour ago, Tizer said:

Maybe the England and Wales Regulations have been updated now

Apparently not. A Bill to make SP's compulsory on new builds was rejected as recently as January this year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98yyjlp2zlo

 

Yes all new builds should be fitted with solar panels, but they don't just have to be on the roof. I  was reading that a hugely popular option in Germany is vertical panels . We should also be following France in that all car parks (over a set size)  have to be covered in panels.

Renewables can easily fulfill our needs, if we commit to the infrastructure and storage needed, it's not a technology problem, but a willingness to fully embrace the future.

We can change, we have done it before, from Town Gas to Natural Gas took just  just 8 years to change a whole system from one fuel to another. This involved converting around 40 million appliances for 14 million customers, mostly households, reaching a peak of 2.3 million a year in the 1970s

Rules on ZEV mandate to be relaxed in reaction to  US tariffs. Detail seems to vary between reports, and still not clear what type of hybrid will.be allowed after 2030 e.g. FHEV or PHEV.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3xe7ppmn2o

Unfortunately I'd not believe ANYTHING the BBC says, so I'll reserve judgement until the facts are reported by a reliable unbiased news outlet like the Trumpton Echo 😀 

 

6 hours ago, unofix said:

reliable unbiased news outlet like the Trumpton Echo

Can't find their website! 

However, GB News (to balance the BBC report) reckons that FHEV and PHEV will both be permitted up to 2035.

(Although I thought hybrids were still permitted up to 2035 by the previous iteration of the policy, just that neither the Conservatives or Labour had defined what they mean by a hybrid).

https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/labour-petrol-diesel-car-ban-2030-hybrids-electric-zev-mandate

Bit more (hopefully unbiased) info on the ZEV revisions here:

 

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/changes-to-zev-mandate-sale-of-hybrid-cars-and-vans-to-be-allowed

41 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

Bit more (hopefully unbiased) info on the ZEV revisions here:

More evidence that being forced to be 'green' is just for us poor plebs, not the rich. Just as ULEZ & Congestion charges don't 'ban' driving, just charge you for the privilege. Government has now exempted the super-rich from being involved in this green nonsense, proving to the world that EVs are nothing to do with saving the planet, but merely a control mechanism on ensuring the 'poor' pay for it all...

"Furthermore, it will now exempt small and micro-volume manufacturers – supercar brands including McLaren and Aston Martin – from the mandate targets.."

Drill baby, drill...

35 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

"Furthermore, it will now exempt small and micro-volume manufacturers – supercar brands including McLaren and Aston Martin – from the mandate targets.."

Yes, I spotted that too in some of the other reports.

It's a funny message they're giving out here. In my correspondence with my MP lately on the topic of mooted further incentives for EV buyers (which he intimated were quite possible) I pointed out that cutting winter fuel allowance while subsidising e.g. Tesla** buyers was not a good look.

Now it looks like it's ok to have an Aston Martin but for anyone wanting a small, cheap petrol hatchback it's hard luck!

(**This was just before The Donald's latest move.)