EV-based road transportation is not viable

[MadScientist]

I find it very amusing that you’re all sitting here, discussing something that isn’t gonna happen

Agreed there’s no ice revival coming. It’s Bev all the way

[tggzzz]

The current evidence where I live te BEV sales growth suggests that recharging time is not a major decision factor. In practice people have relatively modest daily range requirements often well under 100 km per day. Hehce the requirement for lengthy charge times simply isn’t a factor for many car users.

 

Yet another example of the "mad scientist" making elementary errors.

This time the egregious error has a simple name: selection bias. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/selection-bias/

Hint: those people for whom a lengthy charging time would be a problem simply won't buy a BEV.

That's another example of zealots ignoring the phenomena of "picking the low hanging fruit". Fanboys really should be aware of the phenomenon neatly articulated by Roy Amara
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81

My point referred to Bev purchases. It’s clear that many in that sector is not concerned about lengthy recharge times cause they buy the Bev anyway.

That isn't what you wrote, it is a different statement.

It is also a tautology.

I don’t care about those that preclude owning a Bev. They are not part of the solution they are part of the problem.

Ah. The "there isn't a valid point because I don't care about the point" tactic. It is unimpressive, not unexpected, and only a short step away from being victim blaming.

[MadScientist]

The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc

These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo  is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.

Decarbonisation of private transport is a worthwhile goal and it’s public policy in many developed nations. To that end that means disincentivising ICE and encouraging users to change modes of transport. To that end the auto industry has largely settled on BEV as the solution.  Bev technology over the next decade will meet the vast majority of current users requirements while aiding such decarbonisation.

It’s one  thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.

[tggzzz]

The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc

These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo  is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.

Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.

It’s one  thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.

Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.

Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.

[bdunham7]

That's another example of zealots ignoring the phenomena of "picking the low hanging fruit". Fanboys really should be aware of the phenomenon neatly articulated by Roy Amara
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81

Another saying that I'll attribute to Arno Penzias (because I heard him say it...) is that we simultaneously underestimate how much a technology itself will change and overestimate how much it will change society.  So if you were to go back two decades to just after all the EV1s were crushed and talk about EVs with 500 mile ranges that could charge in under an hour, the reaction would be "that's impossible, but if it was everyone would have one for sure and gasoline would be obsolete". 

[bdunham7]

Bev technology over the next decade will meet the vast majority of current users requirements while aiding such decarbonisation.

It’s one  thing having an informed and reasonable debate...another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.

So is this not a informed and reasonable debate?  Is listing specific reasons why BEVs don't work in someone's particular case "rabid anti-BEV nonsense...."?  If I've been driving an EV for a decade but disagree with your first statement, what happens?  Does your head explode?

[tom66]

This thread is going around in circles.  I think we all understand each other's viewpoints and things are unlikely to continue with endless debate.

That said, a friendly "bet":  by 2030 I believe BEV will be the dominant technology for new vehicle sales and hydrogen will be still in the few percent range.  There will be no cheap hydrogen cars, but a good range of cheap BEVs, though prices of BEVs will remain above those of the cheapest ICE for some time to come.   ICE will remain for some time but as the phase out becomes obvious people will be less willing to buy new ICE and manufacturers will discontinue investment in these vehicles, except in niche fields.

[nctnico]

This thread is going around in circles.  I think we all understand each other's viewpoints and things are unlikely to continue with endless debate.

That said, a friendly "bet":  by 2030 I believe BEV will be the dominant technology for new vehicle sales and hydrogen will be still in the few percent range.  There will be no cheap hydrogen cars, but a good range of cheap BEVs, though prices of BEVs will remain above those of the cheapest ICE for some time to come.   ICE will remain for some time but as the phase out becomes obvious people will be less willing to buy new ICE and manufacturers will discontinue investment in these vehicles, except in niche fields.

2030 is too soon. It is less than 7 years from now. And you have to define in which market BEV will be dominant. Even for Europe getting to >50% of all new cars sold being a BEV will be a very long stretch by 2030 (at this moment 10% of all cars sold in EU are BEV). It is far more interesting to see what the car landscape will look like in 2040. At that point we'll probably be able to see what the 'dominant' technology is going to be.

[NiHaoMike]

Phevs are transistion solutions , expensive , largely carrying the worst of both technologies and a transistion tech.

I see them as the most practical for those who usually drive short distances but sometimes have to drive long distances.

There was a guy in SF I think who was famous for his modified Leaf with a trailer - he towed a 30kW turbine engine behind it to extend the range.

It's an interesting concept but I'm not sure people just want to keep a spare turbine engine in their garage (if they even have one) for longer trips

If the trailer is only rarely used, renting it might make more sense. It also provides an upgrade path to a trailer based on fuel cells if they become affordable.

[Marco]

That said, a friendly "bet":  by 2030 I believe BEV will be the dominant technology for new vehicle sales and hydrogen will be still in the few percent range.

Doesn't really matter, car manufacturers are going to recoup maximum investments from manufacturing lines. If everyone believes the EU isn't going to blink, the manufacturers will get the production lines on line when they need it ... but there is no real reason to do it gradually so the situation 5 years before the ban isn't too meaningful.

The magic date is the EU ban date. That's the only bet worth making, are they going to blink or not.

[themadhippy]

Or a trailer to effectively convert an EV to plug in hybrid only when needed

No trailer needed

[MadScientist]

The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc

These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo  is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.

Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.

It’s one  thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.

Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.

Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.

But the point is BEVs are practical for many users at this point of their technical development. That’s clear from the rise in sales of BEVs. Around me it entirely common  to see them.

Sure issues remain , nothing is perfect , but again it’s a compromise solution nothings perfect but in the march towards decarbonisation it’s a start , a good start.  Low noise , low pollution at the point of use , cost effective etc.

As an owner of both diesel and a Bev I can compare avd contrast and the Bev comes  out well , certainly a lot  cheaper to run and tax /insure  than the diesel.

Anyone within Bev experience accepts the current models have drawbacks it’s not yet a universal replacement but it has come on in leaps and bounds and the latest are very capable vehicles

Hence  given  the stated public policy goal to decarbonise road transport BEVs represent a good start and look like aiding that public  policy

[MadScientist]

That said, a friendly "bet":  by 2030 I believe BEV will be the dominant technology for new vehicle sales and hydrogen will be still in the few percent range.

Doesn't really matter, car manufacturers are going to recoup maximum investments from manufacturing lines. If everyone believes the EU isn't going to blink, the manufacturers will get the production lines on line when they need it ... but there is no real reason to do it gradually so the situation 5 years before the ban isn't too meaningful.

The magic date is the EU ban date. That's the only bet worth making, are they going to blink or not.

There is no EU ban. The ban must be translated in individual country bans a d once can expect the usual “ EU” fudge as different countries will be at different stages of readiness. Hence it going to very inconsistent across the EU.

Hence there is no “ EU blink “ but you can be sure the laws will be inconsistent across the EU.

[tggzzz]

The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc

These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo  is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.

Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.

It’s one  thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.

Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.

Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.

But the point is BEVs are practical for many users at this point of their technical development. That’s clear from the rise in sales of BEVs. Around me it entirely common  to see them.

Sure issues remain , nothing is perfect , but again it’s a compromise solution nothings perfect but in the march towards decarbonisation it’s a start , a good start.  Low noise , low pollution at the point of use , cost effective etc.

As an owner of both diesel and a Bev I can compare avd contrast and the Bev comes  out well , certainly a lot  cheaper to run and tax /insure  than the diesel.

Anyone within Bev experience accepts the current models have drawbacks it’s not yet a universal replacement but it has come on in leaps and bounds and the latest are very capable vehicles

Hence  given  the stated public policy goal to decarbonise road transport BEVs represent a good start and look like aiding that public  policy

You continue to mutate and moderate the statements you make, every time someone points out the gross flaws in them.

In one sense that is good, but it is bloody tedious - and could and should be avoided.

Zealots and fanboys need to be called out.

[eti]

Dave must love his forum being bloated with pompous know-it-alls. He lets these brain-ache threads go on FAR too long.

[MadScientist]

The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc

These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo  is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.

Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.

It’s one  thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.

Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.

Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.

But the point is BEVs are practical for many users at this point of their technical development. That’s clear from the rise in sales of BEVs. Around me it entirely common  to see them.

Sure issues remain , nothing is perfect , but again it’s a compromise solution nothings perfect but in the march towards decarbonisation it’s a start , a good start.  Low noise , low pollution at the point of use , cost effective etc.

As an owner of both diesel and a Bev I can compare avd contrast and the Bev comes  out well , certainly a lot  cheaper to run and tax /insure  than the diesel.

Anyone within Bev experience accepts the current models have drawbacks it’s not yet a universal replacement but it has come on in leaps and bounds and the latest are very capable vehicles

Hence  given  the stated public policy goal to decarbonise road transport BEVs represent a good start and look like aiding that public  policy

You continue to mutate and moderate the statements you make, every time someone points out the gross flaws in them.

In one sense that is good, but it is bloody tedious - and could and should be avoided.

Zealots and fanboys need to be called out.

I’m merely debating the topic I see drawbacks in BEVs I know this well I own one.

The point is BEVs may have flaws but both over time and with increasingly better batteries thisecflaws will fade to in significance. That’s my point. The future tech has largely been decided by  manufacturers and that’s overwhelmingly BEV.   

I’ve said before that I see several shades of issues I’ve never suggested BEVs are not without flaws. What I have contended is despite those flaws they ( BEVs) are likely to be the successor to private ICE transport over the next years. It’s no ICE and it’s not hybrids or hydrogen.

[tggzzz]

The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc

These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo  is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.

Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.

It’s one  thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.

Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.

Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.

But the point is BEVs are practical for many users at this point of their technical development. That’s clear from the rise in sales of BEVs. Around me it entirely common  to see them.

Sure issues remain , nothing is perfect , but again it’s a compromise solution nothings perfect but in the march towards decarbonisation it’s a start , a good start.  Low noise , low pollution at the point of use , cost effective etc.

As an owner of both diesel and a Bev I can compare avd contrast and the Bev comes  out well , certainly a lot  cheaper to run and tax /insure  than the diesel.

Anyone within Bev experience accepts the current models have drawbacks it’s not yet a universal replacement but it has come on in leaps and bounds and the latest are very capable vehicles

Hence  given  the stated public policy goal to decarbonise road transport BEVs represent a good start and look like aiding that public  policy

You continue to mutate and moderate the statements you make, every time someone points out the gross flaws in them.

In one sense that is good, but it is bloody tedious - and could and should be avoided.

Zealots and fanboys need to be called out.

I’m merely debating the topic I see drawbacks in BEVs I know this well I own one.

The point is BEVs may have flaws but both over time and with increasingly better batteries thisecflaws will fade to in significance. That’s my point. The future tech has largely been decided by  manufacturers and that’s overwhelmingly BEV.   

I’ve said before that I see several shades of issues I’ve never suggested BEVs are not without flaws. What I have contended is despite those flaws they ( BEVs) are likely to be the successor to private ICE transport over the next years. It’s no ICE and it’s not hybrids or hydrogen.

You continue to mutate and moderate the statements you make, every time someone points out the gross flaws in them.

In one sense that is good, but it is bloody tedious - and could and should be avoided.

Zealots and fanboys need to be called out.

[Marco]

There is no EU ban.

There is a law which compels EU nations to implement the ban.

The ban must be translated in individual country bans a d once can expect the usual “ EU” fudge as different countries will be at different stages of readiness. Hence it going to very inconsistent across the EU.

Hence there is no “ EU blink “ but you can be sure the laws will be inconsistent across the EU.

They implement it, or they don't. Fine then, will the EU blink and not impose Article 260 lawsuits against nations which don't implement the ban is the question.

[eti]

Okay all.

Now read this - some uncommon sense: https://thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/2927.htm

In case it goes offline, here's the copy:

Here’s Why Electric Cars Are Useless -by Revd Philip Foster MA

Here’s Why Electric Cars Are Useless:TESLA -range, on the flat, just over 200 miles
in summer. In winter lucky to get 100 miles.

To suggest, as some ignorant people have, that electric cars ‘emit no CO2’ is
absurd because the power stations that charge them do. To charge an electric
vehicle (such as a Tesla), just once, requires the burning of 40 kilograms of coal.

 A petrol car will require about 20 kilograms of petrol for the same distance. It follows that the electric car is emitting about double the CO2 of a petrol car.

Here are the sums:Drax [ower station uses about 0.31 kilograms of coal per KWh generated.1

A Tesla battery is rated at 70 KWh and fast charging is only 60% efficient.It will need 125 KWh of electricity for a single charge; this works out asabout 40 kilogram (0.31×125) of coal for a full charge [87kg on Greenpeace data].

The cost of electricity for the range available in a Tesla—200 miles in summer; 100 miles in winter—works out at ~ £19. The petrol for 200 miles costsmore but most of that cost is tax (currently about 60%)—about £28. In winter,
for 100 miles, the petrol costs just £15.

During trials, between 1927-30, of British steamlocomotives a typical result was that, for a 500 ton express train, coal was consumed at the rateof 20 kg per mile.2 Over 200 miles therefore 4000 kg was consumed.Scaling down to a twoton car: 4000÷250=16 kg coal. Even allowingfor economiesof scale, compare this to the 40kg required by a Tesla.

Further issues and hazards:

• In the battery manufacture for a Tesla model S, around 17.5 ton of CO2 has
been released. That would take a petrol/diesel car some eight years to produce!3
• Battery cycling—the deterioration of the capacity of a lithium battery with
charging—must be allowed for, costing about £3 per cycle.4
•Fire: even small lithium batteries are liable to catch fire or even explode,releasing deadly toxins such as COS, HF, CO.5 The huge dangers for occupants In tthe event of an accident are obvious. Firehoses would only exacerbate theproblem, causing electrocution of victims.6 [The Emergency Services can’t touch acrashed EV without calling for specialist equipment - recently a Tesla was ashes in 90 seconds!]

1. www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm. Figures from Greenpeace are higher: 0.7

kg/KWh (www.energydesk.greenpeace.org/2013/02/14/much-coal-burning-will-keep-burning/). Not all
electricity is produced from coal of course, but it makes a simple comparator. Wind turbines take around five
years to pay off their CO2 ‘debt’ (concrete, metal mining, refining etc). They seldom last more than ten years.
Their main bearings last less than two years.

2. The British Steam Locomotive 1925-1965 by O.S.Nock, Ian Allan 1966. p67 Dynamometer Car Tests 1927 on

LMSR Engine Royal Scot No. 6100.
3. According to IVL, the Swedish Environment Institute.
4. Battery ‘swopping’ is unviable. An average garage refuels 1000 cars a day; how are they going to recharge
1000 batteries every day @ 5-12 hours each? Also who is going to carry them @>half a ton each?
5. Carbonyl sulphide (similar in action to cyanide gas), hydrogen fluroride, carbon monoxide.
6. This happens: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44511200 ‘Tesla spontaneously bursts into flames’
LMSR Royal Scot 6100 in 1927



• The Tesla battery alone weighs 800kg—that’s nearly a ton—equivalent to ten
passengers (an average petrol engine + fuel weighs about 140kg).7
• Every servicing garage will be compelled to buy a completely new suite of
tools, lifts, ramps etc. under electrical safety regulations for EVs.
•

Death from exposure. In winter, travelling, say, over the Yorkshire moors in a blizzard at night, you are likely to die. The car ‘dies’, as battery power drops due to the cold. There is now no heating. You freeze inside, you freeze outsidetrying to find help.

Petrol and diesel cars do not have this problem.8

• As most of the numpties, who think electric cars are viable, live in towns the
above point doubtless passes them by, but the huge potential for traffic
clogging due to ‘dead’ electric vehicles has not been considered9, nor has the
issue of time to recharge.

Currently an average petrol car takes about five minutes to fill up with petrol, pay and depart. If an electric car takes a minimum of 75 minutes to recharge (five hours is more likely), either the queues are going to be astronomical10 and the time wasted ditto (see also note4.) or there will need to be nearly five million charge points installed at an estimated roll out cost of £20 billion.

The BBC took an electric car from London to Edinburgh. It took threedays, slower than a stagecoach. People sometimes need to get to places quickly!

7. Roadside tyre change is impossible without a hydraulic lift for the whole vehicle.

8. Further, any ‘off-road’ EV would fry its battery and motors (or blow a fuse) if stuck in difficult terrain.
9. One type of electric car is called a Leaf. This will give a wholly new meaning to ‘leaves on the road/line’!
10. as happened in California in 2019: a two mile queue for 40 super chargers.
Mass per unit energy for batteries v. fossil fuels:Summer 40:1Winter 80:1

In case anyone thinks that there is a miracle battery just over the horizon.....I can absolutely assure him or her that there is no battery technology that is mature11,To quote Mr David Hume, “Miracles do not happen.” (at least in technology).

No law was ever required to ban horses and replace them with cars; so why do we have to ban petrol vehicles if EVs are really so wonderfu? Oh, don’t forget that you’ll need to pay to have it taken away when you buy a new one.

Just where is all this power to come from anyway? The Climate Change Act now requires that by 2030 all gas heating be replacedby electric heating and all new cars be electric. Besides the stupidity of turning
huge amounts of electricity back into heat, clearly no one in government has done the maths. The results are horrendous!

Drax power station in Yorkshire 4 gigaWatt = 4,000,000 kiloWatt22 million gas using households (to replace gas boiler)12 @ 30kW 660,000,000kW

31 million standard13 chargers for electric cars @ 8kW 248,000,000kW
908,000,000kW  All needed at peak from 5pm when people come home, plug in the car, turn on heating,
turn on the oven and take a shower.This will require: 908,000,000kW ÷ 4,000,000 (1 Drax) ® 227 extra ‘Drax’ power stations.

Were these to be run on biomass (wood chips)—as 50% of Drax already is—this would
consume, annually, the entire timber harvest of the USA!Plus—we will need to dig up every street to lay much bigger cables.Estimated cost: between £200 billion and £1 trillion.

11. There is even now a global shortage of Lithium and Cobalt; also of Neodymium for the motor magnets.

12. Heat pumps would be totally impractical for most of the UK’s housing stock . But if used - they rate @
10kW and cost £15,000 - would reduce the number of new ‘Drax’ sized power stations required to 117.
13. The 75 minute Tesla super charger requires industrial 400v 3-phase supply (unavailable to domestic homes).
31 million such super chargers would require an additional 770 Drax power stations.

Electric HGVs anyone?Battery alone would weigh 30 tons for just 200 miles

I am grateful to Chris Skerry (a Tesla owner) for some of the data for the Tesla.

Compiled by Philip Foster MA (Nat. Sci.) 1 Barnfield, Hemingford Abbots, Huntingdon PE28 9AX

 philip.foster17@ntlworld.com
He is the author of While the Earth Endures: Creation, Cosmology and Climate Change
Available on Amazon UK or order direct; contact details above.

[Monkeh]

Okay all.

Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>

Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?

Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.

As with most such, uh, reliable sources of information, it's free alright - free of actual thought, facts, sound math, reasoning..

[eti]

Okay all.

Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>

Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?

Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.

"<snipped out bollocks>"

That's an extremely arrogant tone. You've just snipped out and stamped all over any respect I may have had for you. Ciao!

[Monkeh]

Okay all.

Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>

Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?

Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.

"<snipped out bollocks>"

That's an extremely arrogant tone. You've just snipped out and stamped all over any respect I may have had for you. Ciao!

Couldn't care less if you respect me, because you don't respect anything else.

Come back with arguments, not nonsense articles from the uneducated.

[eti]

Okay all.

Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>

Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?

Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.

"<snipped out bollocks>"

That's an extremely arrogant tone. You've just snipped out and stamped all over any respect I may have had for you. Ciao!

Couldn't care less if you respect me, because you don't respect anything else.

Come back with arguments, not nonsense articles from the uneducated.

Allow me to parse your rationale:

You: "Because I don't agree with what is said, I'll make clumsy, churlish ad-hominem references to the person that was the source of what was said, with which I do not agree, whilst showing an unwilling to respectfully, maturely and politely explain why I disagree..."

I'll wait for your intelligent, rational responses... <tumbleweed> - and in case it escapes you, try sticking to THE SUBJECT MATTER, not being distracted by someone who is a complete stranger to you, and you feel it your "right" to attack, conveniently distracting yourself FROM ACTUALLY SHOWING YOUR REASONING.

[Monkeh]

Okay all.

Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>

Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?

Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.

"<snipped out bollocks>"

That's an extremely arrogant tone. You've just snipped out and stamped all over any respect I may have had for you. Ciao!

Couldn't care less if you respect me, because you don't respect anything else.

Come back with arguments, not nonsense articles from the uneducated.

Allow me to parse your rationale:

You: "Because I don't agree with what is said, I'll make clumsy, churlish ad-hominem references to the person that was the source of what was said, with which I do not agree, whilst showing an unwilling to respectfully, maturely and politely explain why I disagree..."

I'll wait for your intelligent, rational responses... <tumbleweed> - and in case it escapes you, try sticking to THE SUBJECT MATTER, not being distracted by someone who is a complete stranger to you, and you feel it your "right" to attack, conveniently distracting yourself FROM ACTUALLY SHOWING YOUR REASONING.

Why should I make the effort to present detailed arguments to you when you have expressly refused to do so with anyone else, preferring to mock others instead? Because you feel everyone should treat you better than you treat them?

I disregard his article based upon his obvious ignorance of the subject matter. Drax does not burn coal, and coal burning is not a relevant form of power generation in the country. This makes it an entirely useless comparator chosen solely for dramatic effect.

Other points are fairly equally nonsensical. Can't change the tyre on an EV without a hydraulic lift? .. I have one which can pick a Tesla up. I can pick it up with one hand. Not that it's any use, being that they, like the majority of cars today, don't come with spare wheels.

I frankly decline to further pick apart the inaccuracies of that 'article', as it's not worth the time. Those with relevant knowledge and experience don't require the explanation, and the only one here pushing said article isn't going to listen.

[themadhippy]

Drax does not burn coal,

whilst i agree the "article" is 2 (4/3 π r³) drax does occasionally burn coal and had its licence to do so extended to the end of next month