Electric vehicle charging bays for car parks in Watford (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Electric vehicle charging bays for car parks in Watford, north Watford and Pinner Road
3:30pm Wednesday 9th January 2013 in News
By Mike Wright, Chief Reporter
Electric vehicle charging bays for car parks in Watford
New eye-catching bays have been popping up in car parks in Watford as part of a scheme to accommodate and encourage electric cars.
Specially earmarked spaces have been created in the Gade, Sutton, Queens and The Avenue car parks in the town centre, in the Longspring car par in north Watford as well as the Pinner Road car park near the Bushey Arches.
Motorists driving petrol vehicles are able to park in them at the moment.
However they will reserved solely for electric vehicles after a county-wide traffic order comes into effect later this year, with drivers facing a fine for parking non-electric cars there.
The new spaces come with plug-in sockets for drivers to charge up their electric or hybrid vehicles.
Two more car parks are also due to get electric bays: Timberlake Car Park off Radlett Road and also at Watford Business Park.
Watford Borough Council said it hopes to have all the bays finished and up and running by March.
The spaces are being installed as part of a government-funded scheme and the power is being run from Hertfordshire County Council’s EDF supply via a feeder pillar.
Comments(45)
Mohandas
says...
5:59pm Wed 9 Jan 13
LSC
says...
7:40pm Wed 9 Jan 13
It is not created at all, it is simply converted.
Some power stations use oil; So you are now using the same commodity, converting it (which always leads to waste) to power a less efficient vehicle which does more damage to the planet to make and dispose of than normal cars. Is that green?
No.
Add to that, how many cars are in your street or company car park? 50? 100?
Each will require a charging point if we all go electric. Existing wiring could not cope with this, so EVERY ROAD IN THE COUNTRY will have to be dug up and the wires replaced with thicker ones. Which are made from metal. Metals are mined from the ground and put into really hot furnaces to make them pure.
Hands up who knows what powers the furnaces?
Yes, oil!
And we will need millions of miles of extra wire. And what do we insulate wire with? Plastic! And guess how we make that!
We will also require millions of the charging points themselves, made from guess what, metals and plastics.
The whole idea of any mass electric car use is so beyond stupid it makes my eyes water just trying to think that slowly.
Yes, there are problems on this planet we need to address, but let's not waste time and money on this sort of token poppycock.
theturpster
says...
8:11pm Wed 9 Jan 13
Nascot
says...
8:32pm Wed 9 Jan 13
Answer - none
MarsLander
says...
8:56pm Wed 9 Jan 13
The sooner this tomfoolery stops the better, I object to my money being used on such fool schemes.
What do the different parties in Watford have to say about this? WO, why not ask them for a statement?
Andrew1963
says...
10:26pm Wed 9 Jan 13
MarsLander
says...
9:46am Thu 10 Jan 13
Andrew1963 wrote:The council itself is powered by an old nag the by-product of which is a load of yellow manure.
I am thinking of running a horse drawn vehicle. Apparantley unlike cars, horses can reproduce their own replacements. Will the government allow me to refuel it in Oxhey park?
I think you'll be safe enough.
TRT
says...
10:13am Thu 10 Jan 13
Electricity can be generated in many different ways - it's like the dollar, a universal currency. So at the moment the bulk comes from gas, oil and coal, but it can also come from solar, nuclear, wave, geo-thermal... So why not spread the load a bit?
MarsLander
says...
10:32am Thu 10 Jan 13
TRT wrote:because it is not cost effective, range is severely limited and charging is not quick enough.
I can't believe the number of anti-electric vehicle comments on here. The charging points at that car park have actually been there for over 12 months already. It's not just for electric vehicles but for any "plug-in" vehicle. The arguments about fossil fuel use etc are valid for the moment, but what alternative do you luddites propose? Stay with hydro-carbons until we run out completely? Install hydrogen outlets everywhere? Bio-fuels? Compressed air? This car park is in the shadow of a bridge built to carry trains; trains that run on electricity but used to run on coal. Perhaps we should have stuck with anthracite as a fuel source?
Electricity can be generated in many different ways - it's like the dollar, a universal currency. So at the moment the bulk comes from gas, oil and coal, but it can also come from solar, nuclear, wave, geo-thermal... So why not spread the load a bit?
I can go into a petrol station and within minutes have filled up my car sufficiently to take me several hundred miles whereupon I can within minutes refill with petrol easily to take me another several hundred miles.
There's a reason these chargers are in car parks and not petrol stations. How many hours does it take to recharge and how far will that get you?
TRT, the analogy between trains on steam, diesel and electricity is not valid, unless you know of a train that is powered exclusively by battery. I don't. We can hardly keep these cars plugged in now, can we? There would be cables trailing everywhere, very dangerous and messy.
Green is a wonderful colour. Faux green, not so good.
To complete their folly I would like the council to put a windmill up at each charger so that the electricity comes only from the windmill, not the grid.
How relaxing it will be for green-minded motorists to wait several days or months for a full charge so they can do another 50 miles home.
With current technology it is just a joke and we are paying for this folly. I don't have money to burn. Do you?
LSC
says...
10:36am Thu 10 Jan 13
To power electric cars we will need literally hundreds of new power stations.
Wind won't cope, solar (at present) does more harn than good, people are too scared of nuclear and the other technologies aren't good enough yet.
Instead of designing trendy looking charging points and cute little town cars, spend the money on the power station technology.
TRT
says...
10:54am Thu 10 Jan 13
There is also the need to standardise the plug, socket and payment metering systems, so the manufacturer that subsidises the initial roll-out will become the dominant one and thus be able to license the technology as a revenue stream, much as in the VHS/Betamax war.
LSC
says...
12:20pm Thu 10 Jan 13
In time, something like the hydrogen fuel cell will be the answer, or perhaps a revolution in solar power.
But until then why ruin the planet in an effort to make it look like we are saving the planet?
MarsLander
says...
12:25pm Thu 10 Jan 13
LSC wrote:Well said.
Electric cars are simply a non-starter, and a lot of public money will be spent to making it look like 'somebody is doing something'.
In time, something like the hydrogen fuel cell will be the answer, or perhaps a revolution in solar power.
But until then why ruin the planet in an effort to make it look like we are saving the planet?
Faux green is not attractive.
TRT
says...
12:44pm Thu 10 Jan 13
LSC
says...
1:27pm Thu 10 Jan 13
TRT wrote:At the moment, badly. Hence I used the words 'something like'.
How the F. Do you think hydrogen fuel cell vehicles work?
MarsLander
says...
1:32pm Thu 10 Jan 13
Why force a solution that is not ready and may never make the grade just to look like we're "doing something"?
This is a victory for"style" over substance, as in so many expensive green initiatives, but it is a defeat for common sense and the taxpayers who foot the bill.
Green? Yes. At any cost? No.
TRT
says...
1:47pm Thu 10 Jan 13
Petrol and diesel cars will, one day, go the way of the steam train and be consigned to the (very worthwhile!) school of nostalgia and curiosity. The bulk of day-to-day living will, in the very near future, be in electrically motored vehicles, so you'd better get used to it. If we go part of the way to all zero-emission, carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative transport by way of plug-in vehicles, so be it. I see it as part of the economic evolution.
MarsLander
says...
1:51pm Thu 10 Jan 13
TRT wrote:In Airy-Fairy land the rent is too expensive.
Hydrogen fuel cells generate electricity. They are akin to batteries. The drive to develop a motoring mindset which does not automatically reject electrically powered vehicles as merely souped up milk-floats is a worthy one indeed. The expression "petrol head" springs to mind!
Petrol and diesel cars will, one day, go the way of the steam train and be consigned to the (very worthwhile!) school of nostalgia and curiosity. The bulk of day-to-day living will, in the very near future, be in electrically motored vehicles, so you'd better get used to it. If we go part of the way to all zero-emission, carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative transport by way of plug-in vehicles, so be it. I see it as part of the economic evolution.
Sorry, I can't afford to live there, it's as simple as that. I'll stay where I am.
TRT
says...
2:05pm Thu 10 Jan 13
Well, I'll be sure to send the errand boy round to pick up your next comment then, as those new fangled computer gadgets are far too expensive for the likes of you, MarsLander. Be sure to tip him a ha'penny.
LSC
says...
2:06pm Thu 10 Jan 13
But that is impossible until you sort out the power stations. At the moment an electric car is often said to be zero-emission, but it isn't. Not a bit of it. All the exhaust simply comes out at a different place, and a darn sight more of it too.
TRT
says...
2:41pm Thu 10 Jan 13
(2) The cost per mile in "fuel" to the end user is around 1:4 for electricity:petrol. In terms of power stations, well, we generally import crude oil and refine it ourselves, which involves heating the oil up and fractionally distilling it into the various components. That heating is done primarily with electricity off the national grid... so what's better?
(3) Short term goals in the race to become less polluting and more energy independent are most likely to be met by increase efficiency in conventionally-power
ed vehicles, but long term goals can only be met by a country with a strong plan for implementing a decarbonised energy supply; a plan which starts small and has realistically achievable steps.
LSC
says...
2:56pm Thu 10 Jan 13
But this is the wrong thing, and will be an expensive mistake both financially and environmentally.
Andrew1963
says...
4:19pm Thu 10 Jan 13
lities.
garston tony
says...
11:22am Fri 11 Jan 13
LSC generating electricity can generate polution, the question is the amount of pollution generated to power up an electric car less or more than a car running on petrol or diesel. I'd suggest electric is actually less polluting on the whole, certainly in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle where there will be no fumes at all.
And people would use a power source from their own home when they are at home, there is no need to install such points on every street.
At the very least this is a step in the right direction, much better than doing nothing which it seems is pretty much what the knockers are advocating!
MarsLander
says...
11:36am Fri 11 Jan 13
Only if it is a WORTHWHILE step in the right direction. In my opinion, it is not. There we differ.
TRT
says...
11:42am Fri 11 Jan 13
MarsLander
says...
1:17pm Fri 11 Jan 13
The interviewer asked the question "What have you done to save the planet?"
The first man said "I have installed electric points to car parks to allow electric cars to recharge over several hours. We have invested hundreds of millions of pounds across the country to do this and we have spent countless hours in committees with the worlds more eminent and expensive scientists planning where to put them. We know there are no cars yet that use them, but they are there in preparation in case anyone does get an electric car and wants to charge it. We must be ready, for this is the future!"
The next man was asked the same question. He answered "We are researching green initiatives. When we feel any of them are ready for implementation and will be cost-effective we will start to implement them. Being mature and tested by that time they are likely to pay for themselves and therefore not be a further burden on the taxpayer and the overburdened public purse. There will also be no risk of premature implementation (many politicians who wish to be viewed as "green" suffer from this) and therefore no risk of spending huge sums of taxpayers money on things that in all likelihood may never take off or will be overtaken by newer technology before coming into widespread use."
Which one has his head screwed on, and which one is screwing the taxpayer?
What will be the next scare now the Earth has stopped warming and the warming lobby are being exposed as frauds and wishful thinkers? Global cooling? The solution to which would presumably be the public burning of huge piles of cash, wastefully, to counter the cooling of the earth. Rather like is happening now in the name of global warming, eh TRT?
LSC
says...
1:23pm Fri 11 Jan 13
That wouldn't work, for one thing imagine the parking wars if you couldn't park near enough to your house! And trailing wires across the pavement? People who are in flats etc? Neighbours unplugging your car and plugging theirs in using your electricity in the middle of the night?
Don't forget the grid already struggles when a few hundred thousand turn on the kettle during the ad break in Corrie. Imagine 20 million or so cars being plugged in just after rush hour.
Too many problems to overcome for home charging to be an option.
TRT
says...
1:33pm Fri 11 Jan 13
You will be able to request a marked bay for plug-ins within cable reach of your house (where practicable) as a result of the legislation going through. You cannot reserve it for your sole use, but, of course, if there is no public charging point there then no-one else with a plug-in is likely to use it for recharging! The scheme of dedicated bays is already in operation in other places. The charging points are intelligent and can pick up data streams sent over the wiring in order to moderate their charge rate according to demand at the local substation. Substations are already communicating such data up and down stream for the purpose of national network regulation. This has all been thought out, you know.
MarsLander
says...
1:37pm Fri 11 Jan 13
LSC wrote:Common sense will always get in the way of green dreams. It may take time to overcome the "green at any price is good" lobby, but common sense always wins through in the end.
"And people would use a power source from their own home when they are at home, there is no need to install such points on every street."
That wouldn't work, for one thing imagine the parking wars if you couldn't park near enough to your house! And trailing wires across the pavement? People who are in flats etc? Neighbours unplugging your car and plugging theirs in using your electricity in the middle of the night?
Don't forget the grid already struggles when a few hundred thousand turn on the kettle during the ad break in Corrie. Imagine 20 million or so cars being plugged in just after rush hour.
Too many problems to overcome for home charging to be an option.
I doubt electric cars will become mainstream in my lifetime and I'm not intending to pop my clogs for a very long time yet, although like TRT I do remember ha'pennies.
My mobile phone needs charging every night, and then it cannot be guaranteed to run for 24 hours, meaning I could be left high and dry. You can live with it but most people will tell you it is simply not good enough, it must get better and last for days or weeks before we are satisfied. Rather like a tankful of petrol, now I come to think of it.
Compared to phones, battery-powered cars aren't even off the starting blocks. Without being forced to by government green edicts or huge taxpayer-funded subsidies, who on earth would choose one? The technology simply is not there to make it a cost-effective or even practical choice. As for being green, the pollution is merely displaced, not removed.
garston tony
says...
9:24am Mon 14 Jan 13
MarsLander wrote:I know a few asthma sufferers who would disagree with you there and cant wait until the day all cars emit no pollution which this is a step towards.
Doing something is better than doing nothing? Only if it is a WORTHWHILE step in the right direction. In my opinion, it is not. There we differ.
Of course, some people only look to the end of their own noses when making their opinions up.
garston tony
says...
9:26am Mon 14 Jan 13
LSC wrote:Of course not everyone is at the moment in a situation where it would be easy to charge their cars up at home, maybe these types of charging posts are the remedy to that? I understand they are looking at being able to re charge these cars on the go too. Point is right now there are plenty of people who can charge them easily at home and there isn't going to be a sudden 10 million electric cars turning up needing charging, its going to be a gradual thing and the power generators will be able to increase capacity as demand grows. Just as they have with the increase in demand from the very numerous gadgets everyone seems to have these days. Of course if it was down to some of you lot those gadgets wouldn’t be around.
"And people would use a power source from their own home when they are at home, there is no need to install such points on every street." That wouldn't work, for one thing imagine the parking wars if you couldn't park near enough to your house! And trailing wires across the pavement? People who are in flats etc? Neighbours unplugging your car and plugging theirs in using your electricity in the middle of the night? Don't forget the grid already struggles when a few hundred thousand turn on the kettle during the ad break in Corrie. Imagine 20 million or so cars being plugged in just after rush hour. Too many problems to overcome for home charging to be an option.
Mobile telephone, why do I need that? I have a phone at home and if I need to call someone when I'm out there is always a pay phone somewhere.
Internet? What's wrong with the encyclopaedia Britannica?
Games console? What's wrong with paper, rock scissors and conkers?
Plasma tv, no thank you guvnor. I'll keep my two foot thick weigh a ton television please, and don’t dare turn of analogue transmissions!
TRT
says...
10:31am Mon 14 Jan 13
MarsLander
says...
10:32am Mon 14 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:Tony,
MarsLander wrote:I know a few asthma sufferers who would disagree with you there and cant wait until the day all cars emit no pollution which this is a step towards.
Doing something is better than doing nothing? Only if it is a WORTHWHILE step in the right direction. In my opinion, it is not. There we differ.
Of course, some people only look to the end of their own noses when making their opinions up.
like you I would like to see the end of pollution. Who wouldn't?
The trouble is, pollution is a necessary by-product of modern life. All we can do in control pollution, not eradicate it.
The key is in making the judgement as to what sacrifices we are prepared to make to reach a greener future.
You might not think I have got the right balance. Maybe you're right, but if we followed your lead we would be bankrupted and that is too high a price to pay for "green".
The country is in huge debt. Why spend taxes needlessly on green schemes when they could be used to pay off the government debt? Why spend money on schemes that make things more expensive to live?
Poverty is more dangerous than pollution, ask anyone, even your asthma sufferer friends.
What's beyond the end of your nose, Tony?
MarsLander
says...
10:40am Mon 14 Jan 13
TRT wrote:TRT,
Having got thoroughly blackened by an underground steam train in London this weekend, I would urge that you try out this new fangled electric propulsion system for yourself.
are you proposing we abandon our steam-driven cars? Quelle Horreur!
They were invented, I have seen archive pictures of them, a few were made, but they didn't take off.
A better technology came along and has been working perfectly well ever since, being refined to be better year on year. It was called the combustion engine and it largely is fuelled by petrol and diesel. It's been going ages, surely you've come across it?
I would urge that you try out this new fangled petrol-based propulsion system for yourself.
MarsLander
says...
10:52am Mon 14 Jan 13
MarsLander wrote:Oh, I forgot to ask, when will you be laying the electrified tracks along every road and street? It works marvellously for trains, I'm sure the technology would transfer without issue... but then again, would it?
TRT wrote:TRT,
Having got thoroughly blackened by an underground steam train in London this weekend, I would urge that you try out this new fangled electric propulsion system for yourself.
are you proposing we abandon our steam-driven cars? Quelle Horreur!
They were invented, I have seen archive pictures of them, a few were made, but they didn't take off.
A better technology came along and has been working perfectly well ever since, being refined to be better year on year. It was called the combustion engine and it largely is fuelled by petrol and diesel. It's been going ages, surely you've come across it?
I would urge that you try out this new fangled petrol-based propulsion system for yourself.
Of course, pedestrians are not allowed to cross the tracks on train lines. They are dangerous I believe as they have electric current running through them. Such an inconvenient truth.
As a by-product of your idea will we be building lots of bridges or subways across every road?
A cheaper option might be to make it illegal to cross the road. One new law, no construction costs.
After all, those bridges and tunnels are expensive and to be honest people do not always trust subways. The pollution involved in building millions, nay billions of bridges and tunnels would be horrendous. Who knows, it may be worse overall than the pollution we currently have from cars. Oh dear oh dear, it's all starting to unravel.
I know I can trust you and Tony to sort out these little snags. Let me know when you have the solution.
By the way, we will need more power stations producing more pollution locally to generate this electricity. No-one seems to want them near them. Some people, eh? So, can we put you each down for one next door to you? Thanks!
LSC
says...
4:39pm Mon 14 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:Betamax. Was it progress? Do we use it now? It didn't even lead on to better systems, DVD and streaming internet share no grandparents with it whatsoever.
LSC wrote:Of course not everyone is at the moment in a situation where it would be easy to charge their cars up at home, maybe these types of charging posts are the remedy to that? I understand they are looking at being able to re charge these cars on the go too. Point is right now there are plenty of people who can charge them easily at home and there isn't going to be a sudden 10 million electric cars turning up needing charging, its going to be a gradual thing and the power generators will be able to increase capacity as demand grows. Just as they have with the increase in demand from the very numerous gadgets everyone seems to have these days. Of course if it was down to some of you lot those gadgets wouldn’t be around.
"And people would use a power source from their own home when they are at home, there is no need to install such points on every street." That wouldn't work, for one thing imagine the parking wars if you couldn't park near enough to your house! And trailing wires across the pavement? People who are in flats etc? Neighbours unplugging your car and plugging theirs in using your electricity in the middle of the night? Don't forget the grid already struggles when a few hundred thousand turn on the kettle during the ad break in Corrie. Imagine 20 million or so cars being plugged in just after rush hour. Too many problems to overcome for home charging to be an option.
Mobile telephone, why do I need that? I have a phone at home and if I need to call someone when I'm out there is always a pay phone somewhere.
Internet? What's wrong with the encyclopaedia Britannica?
Games console? What's wrong with paper, rock scissors and conkers?
Plasma tv, no thank you guvnor. I'll keep my two foot thick weigh a ton television please, and don’t dare turn of analogue transmissions!
Some technology has no future.
Electric cars is one. Progress for the sake of progress is a dead end road.
TRT
says...
5:09pm Mon 14 Jan 13
The Betacam format is still an industry standard, progressing from Betacam to Betacam SP and digital Betacam. In fact DigiBeta was the most successful professional broadcasting media tape format ever and has only in the last few years started to yield to other digital systems.
It is inevitable that some technologies will fall by the wayside, but I think you are being too quickly dismissive of electricity as a source of motive power. If anything, it is the future of the automotive - far from being a dead end. It may be that the *battery* technology will undergo a wide range of dead ducks and non-starters, as will the motor and drive-chain side of things, but to dismiss the whole concept of the electric car as a blind alley that shouldn't be gone further down is, well... stupid. Crass. Short-sighted. Idiotic. Luddite.
So, what's the real objection? Rather than setting the electric car itself up as a straw man, where's the real beef? Is it the tax subsidies? Envy? Did you read it in the tea leaves? Please, knockers, do let on.
MarsLander
says...
5:19pm Mon 14 Jan 13
TRT wrote:The real reason - Common sense, actually.
Betamax? Yes, it was progress and yes, it is used today. The reason the Betamax HOME system didn't take off was down to a concerted drive by the rival JVC VHS format which eventually forced the superior Betamax format off the market by way of marketing and establishing a massive catalogue of both material and distributors.
The Betacam format is still an industry standard, progressing from Betacam to Betacam SP and digital Betacam. In fact DigiBeta was the most successful professional broadcasting media tape format ever and has only in the last few years started to yield to other digital systems.
It is inevitable that some technologies will fall by the wayside, but I think you are being too quickly dismissive of electricity as a source of motive power. If anything, it is the future of the automotive - far from being a dead end. It may be that the *battery* technology will undergo a wide range of dead ducks and non-starters, as will the motor and drive-chain side of things, but to dismiss the whole concept of the electric car as a blind alley that shouldn't be gone further down is, well... stupid. Crass. Short-sighted. Idiotic. Luddite.
So, what's the real objection? Rather than setting the electric car itself up as a straw man, where's the real beef? Is it the tax subsidies? Envy? Did you read it in the tea leaves? Please, knockers, do let on.
When electric powered cars become attractive, and I don't mean by petrol being priced out of existence and electric power subsidised hugely with my own taxes, then I will look at the technology and compare it to its peers. I would like to see it succeed, but it's only fit for the drawing board at present and there are no signs of a significant breakthrough in battery technology that will change that. Bear in mind also the weight of carrying batteries around compared to a partially-filled tank of fuel, it all bodes badly for electric cars.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. I would also like it if the government also "didn't buy it" with my taxes either.
At the moment it's like the Queens limo - a non-starter.
LSC
says...
9:52pm Mon 14 Jan 13
I thought I had, but will say again.
It is all false.
An electric motor is metres and metres of copper wire. Depending on design, you then need a lot of iron for it to spin inside or around. You then, of course, need oil for it to do so smoothly.
Copper is as finite as oil; the Earth only has so much. Iron is as finite as oil. And both need oil anyway to work.
So just where have we stepped forward?
MarsLander
says...
7:34am Tue 15 Jan 13
it's like religion. Religion doesn't rely on science or proof, it is a belief system. It just is, and that's fair enough for religion.
Green is also a belief system. The only problem is, they've brought back the religious tithe with it!
One day we will look back at the green movement from the end of the 20th century/start of the 21st and laugh. We will also wonder how people were so stupid as to let their elected representatives get away with collecting and wasting so much of our taxes for so long.
Maybe we'll be able to take comfort from the fact that at least some of those responsible languish in jail for their part in the worlds biggest-ever fraud - scientists, industrialists and politicians alike.
TRT
says...
10:54am Tue 15 Jan 13
However, I feel you have broadened the scope of this discussion into the remit of climate change, when the original article which sparked this debate was about electric vehicles. The two are not inextricably linked.
OK, so if you put forward the argument that someone's lifestyle choice should not be paid for from general taxation, then I argue what is the point of having an elected governmental body to collect taxes and use that revenue as dictated by their electoral mandate? I don't smoke, yet part of the tax taken from me goes to fund treatment for patients with lung, lip and throat cancers. I don't drink or take drugs, yet the same applies for the additional load on the policing, ambulance and hospital services. This should be an even more galling use of tax revenue, as these activities aren't even done with the conviction that some good will come out of it. Yet from bad comes the good. We know more now about various cancers than we did. We know more about the effects of drugs, illegal and legal, than we did. It goes towards increasing the general pool of knowledge, the search for the essential truth. One of the main reasons that Great Britain was at the forefront of empire building and industrial technology was that our system allowed scientists, inventors, industrialists, financiers etc to join forces and develop and improve realistic and practical technological innovations. The British government would act to smooth the way for private industry as a partner, with enabling legislation, financial surety and start-up funding, much as they do today. The French were left standing for four hundred years because their Académie des Sciences was a device of governance which restricted the free flow of ideas and development, confining the testing and refinement of concepts to the exclusion of private finance until the technology was deemed mature. Admittedly, their system worked, but it did so very, very slowly.
Anyway, enough of the history lesson.The point was that the government is acting of the advice of their scientific panels in an very nearly pan-global effort to spread the energy reliance of the nation away from being almost exclusively based on crude oil and gas. It seems wise not to put all your eggs in one basket. They have an electoral mandate to do this. Not everyone has to agree, just enough to form a government.
And I'm not going to go near LSCs "peak copper" or "peak iron" or "peak oil" argument. Whilst it is true that there are finite resources for everything, the same arguments apply to both electric and conventional motoring - my old petrol car has it's fair share of copper windings, iron, steel, aluminium, plastic, nylon and even wooden parts. Unless LSC's got some business plan which involves knitting bicycles out of hemp, I don't see the thrust of that.
MarsLander
says...
3:20pm Wed 16 Jan 13
What bit of that did you have trouble with?
--------------------
As for the government having a mandate, I disagree. It would have a mandate if it had a referendum on the subject. It hasn't so it doesn't.
The scientific panels are stuffed with global-warming-biase
d scientists, there are many others who differ in opinion and the global-warmers have been found to be doctoring statistics to further their belief in man-made global warming, contrary to the evidence in their possession. They can't, I'm afraid, be trusted to be scientific and open-minded.
Many people have fallen for it but there is now a growing movement of people, including scientists, who question these scientists and their findings.
The truth will out, I just hope we haven't bankrupted ourselves before the climate bubble bursts leaving egg over so many faces.
TRT
says...
3:54pm Wed 16 Jan 13
Well, I suppose I should have let you say what you meant by 'It'. You go on to refer to 'Green', which I read as 'Environmentalism', especially that relating to climate change, greenhouse gasses, global warming etc etc.
Is that what you meant by 'It'? Because although environmentalists can display levels of conviction and belief easily confused with the fervour of a religious zealot, the central tenets of environmentalism are defined by empirical evidence, scientific. Scientific reasoning allows disagreement and dissent, positively encourages it in fact.
What I have trouble with is you trotting out some specious comparison in an attempt to discredit the Loraxes among us. I will put my hand on my heart and state 100% that climate scientists have got their predictions wrong about future global climate change and the role of man, hydrocarbons, greenhouse gasses etc etc. But what I am concerned about is just HOW wrong they are. A fraction of a degree out? Completely wrong? Too conservative? Too extreme? In any event, I see electric vehicles as an inevitable development in personal transport whether they are "green" or not. Perhaps you feel that people are being soft-soaped to believe that driving around in an electric car will save the planet? I don't think the majority of people in this country are that naive; though I may be wrong.
gusgreen says...
5:52pm Wed 9 Jan 13