Electric cars

Still Farming

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
South Wales UK
Nice new suv coming off new St Athan line.
FB_IMG_1560352133502.jpg
 

Scribus

Member
Location
Central Atlantic
Self charging car going to be produced at the old Saab factory in Sweden.

https://sonomotors.com/en/sion/

Can also be charged from the grid or other vehicles and is two way so could run your house.

The company claims that the solar panels may give you an extra 34km (21 miles) per day in Germany, although it doesn't say where in Germany or at what time of year. A sunny midsummer's day in Munich can hardly be compared to the more realistic conditions in Britain of a soggy day in Salford. What then do the the panels add to the charge?
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
I don't want to read the whole of this thread but my son has the similar view to the above and I respect that. With ever increasing technology put into the modern petrol/diesel engine will far outweigh the battery vehicle in every aspect. I was once a big electric fan and perhaps it is the best vehicle in city environments apart from blanket banning of any internal combustion engine within certain city limits, ah, yes there is the argument for transporting goods, but the principal remains and we can overcome this I'm sure. The best thing to look to is less working hours, more public transport and keep your old banger going for 25 years at least then recycle it!
There's probably a graph of 'perfect' running costs on when to buy a second-hand electric vehicle and when to sell it and I'd imagine that window is quite small.
SS
It doesn’t matter how complex/advanced petrol or Diesel engines get, they are still burning fossil fuels, and are far more complex than electric cars. So They have far more moving parts and produce point of use pollution.
Throw in the top three cars world wide for safety standards, are not ICE cars either and are made by one of the youngest car companies, That are mass producing cars.
I can see why the big companies are scared of the new competition, electric will win out not because they are green but because they are just better technology.
10 years will see a big shift in the publics opinion as they see and try these new electric cars and forth and fifth generations cars hit the roads.
With some of the early problems, all new tech have, get ironed out.
It helps when people people are honest what types of mileage they do on a daily basis. And realise the newer electric cars are starting to get 400 mile ranges on a single charge and are designed to do a million miles.
Gone will be the days people will think cars with 200k mileage on them are worn out.
 
Last edited:
But the repercussions for the planet are not the same. Nuclear catastrophe is potentially in the same league as super-volcanoes and large meteor strikes, such is the potential threat to the habitability of the planet.

How many people died from Fukishima?

Three mile Island?

20,000 people were killed by the Tsunami that hit Japan. 1 man drowned in the actual powerstation.

Chernobyl was huge disaster but today people are moving back.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people die annually from respiratory disease caused by air pollution.

Hundreds of square kilometers will become unihabitable desert this year due to deforestation.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
While nuclear power has its disadvantages, lessons have been learned, and lots of them have been run without problem for a long time.
Do I personally think anything is ever fully safe, the only answer to that is no, but do we need them. . . I think we do.
Because we need something to produce the base load that supports our national grid in the uk.
If there was something safer and had less risk I would go that way, but we need at least one thing that can run when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing, that doesn’t require fossil fuels, if not nuclear what?

It’s a factor of needs must, rather than wanting them. Even with endless storage you still need some form of base power generation.
Don’t forget, if we want to have green fuel in our aircraft and other things like C02 capture we need lots of power, and I mean lots!
Any nuclear power station built is guaranteed to be run as much as is possible, but at a safe flat load. No powering up and down to cope with power demands.
I will add I think we should build and own it, if we do build new ones.
 

Pond digger

Never Forgotten
Honorary Member
Location
East Yorkshire
While nuclear power has its disadvantages, lessons have been learned, and lots of them have been run without problem for a long time.
Do I personally think anything is ever fully safe, the only answer to that is no, but do we need them. . . I think we do.
Because we need something to produce the base load that supports our national grid in the uk.
If there was something safer and had less risk I would go that way, but we need at least one thing that can run when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing, that doesn’t require fossil fuels, if not nuclear what?

It’s a factor of needs must, rather than wanting them. Even with endless storage you still need some form of base power generation.
Don’t forget, if we want to have green fuel in our aircraft and other things like C02 capture we need lots of power, and I mean lots!
Any nuclear power station built is guaranteed to be run as much as is possible, but at a safe flat load. No powering up and down to cope with power demands.
I will add I think we should build and own it, if we do build new ones.

I tend to agree, but that doesn’t mean I like it: just too many people on the planet.
 

renewablejohn

Member
Location
lancs
While nuclear power has its disadvantages, lessons have been learned, and lots of them have been run without problem for a long time.
Do I personally think anything is ever fully safe, the only answer to that is no, but do we need them. . . I think we do.
Because we need something to produce the base load that supports our national grid in the uk.
If there was something safer and had less risk I would go that way, but we need at least one thing that can run when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing, that doesn’t require fossil fuels, if not nuclear what?

It’s a factor of needs must, rather than wanting them. Even with endless storage you still need some form of base power generation.
Don’t forget, if we want to have green fuel in our aircraft and other things like C02 capture we need lots of power, and I mean lots!
Any nuclear power station built is guaranteed to be run as much as is possible, but at a safe flat load. No powering up and down to cope with power demands.
I will add I think we should build and own it, if we do build new ones.

I think our existing nuclear fleet says it all. Should be generating over 6GW actually generating less than 4GW with a lot shut due to cracks which nobody wants to talk about. Building another white elephant at Hinkly by a company that only survives due to its ownership by the french Government and still cannot get its plant in france similar to Hinkly finished due to shoddy materials and workmanship.
Nothing at all wrong with solar to provide 24/7 electricity but you must use the right technology with farmers in the unique position to be market leaders with new glasshouse installation incorporating solar. (CSV and Thermal)
 

Cowabunga

Member
Location
Ceredigion,Wales
But the repercussions for the planet are not the same. Nuclear catastrophe is potentially in the same league as super-volcanoes and large meteor strikes, such is the potential threat to the habitability of the planet.
Not from generation. Costs and disruption could be very high of course, if the plant were badly designed or run, leading to an accident. Not in the same league as a super-volcano or certainly not like a medium size foreign body striking the Earth, both of which could be extinction events.
 

Scribus

Member
Location
Central Atlantic
It doesn’t matter how complex/advanced petrol or Diesel engines get, they are still burning fossil fuels, and are far more complex than electric cars. So They have far more moving parts and produce point of use pollution.
Throw in the top three cars world wide for safety standards, are not ICE cars either and are made by one of the youngest car companies, That are mass producing cars.
I can see why the big companies are scared of the new competition, electric will win out not because they are green but because they are just better technology.
10 years will see a big shift in the publics opinion as they see and try these new electric cars and forth and fifth generations cars hit the roads.
With some of the early problems, all new tech have, get ironed out.
It helps when people people are honest what types of mileage they do on a daily basis. And realise the newer electric cars are starting to get 400 mile ranges on a single charge and are designed to do a million miles.
Gone will be the days people will think cars with 200k mileage on them are worn out.

No, they are not all burning fossil fuels, Brazil runs on ethanol and there is a % of ethanol in many EU fuels, hence the 'E5' you'll see at the service station pumps.

Intersting to note that the EV lobby have given up the emphasis on them being green though. But they are still highly inconvenient and guess what, if a modern car or tractor breaks down nowdays it's very often the electronics that cause the problem, not the moving parts, which have become ultra reliable over the years. Today, 200,000 miles on a car with regular oil changes is nothing whereas they'd need a rebore at 50,000 in the days of the early Cortina.

Will EV's actually ever reach 200,000 miles before the battery has lost it's useful capacity? Where are these cars with a realistic (not cooked up) 400 mile range?

The EV lobby is still full of the same old BS.
 
Last edited:

Pond digger

Never Forgotten
Honorary Member
Location
East Yorkshire
Not from generation. Costs and disruption could be very high of course, if the plant were badly designed or run, leading to an accident. Not in the same league as a super-volcano or certainly not like a medium size foreign body striking the Earth, both of which could be extinction events.
Ok, but what I’m trying to say is we’ve no fix for radiation contamination. If we had a Chernobyl size accident in the UK, and the wind blew radioactive material inland, then a large part of the country could be rendered uninhabitable. Hydrogen, by comparison is a pussycat.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
I tend to agree, but that doesn’t mean I like it: just too many people on the planet.
I agree, I don’t like it, if we could manage to do with out them I would, but you have to over stack renewables because of their unpredictability to silly extremes without a backstop, and if we want that backstop to be non fossil fuel or zero Co2 then we don’t have any other options.

The national grid for the uk needs to be as reliable as it is now, for business and you need to cover every worst case possible like the shortest day of the year, we have no wind for 2 days and very little sun but that’s not even the worst case that needs establishing then the amount of energy we need in that period of time now we have millions of vehicles needing electric, and see if we can cover it with just solar and wind or not, or we need a base load supply that can get us over those bumps that’s not fossil fuel supplied.

That’s a big ask from storage when the suns not out and under cloud cover, or fogged in. And the winds also not doing much let’s say renewables hit only 10% of capacity on those days we could need 10x more of them than we actualy need on good days, it’s not efficient. To do that, as on good days your getting more power than you need even if you can install all that production capacity.
I estimate we would need to produce about an average of 50GWhr plus 24/7, so that’s at night and when the wind drops out, now with storage that could be solar if it can make 100GWhrs for 12 hours and it’s stored, or wind making 100GWhr from 12hrs of wind. Per day.
Even with all those cars and power storage, covering a bad week of wind and solar with no fossil fuels like gas, is hard to do.
You end up with having to add massive amounts of redundancy of renewables and your still at risk of not meeting your power needs.

I would happily go 100% renewables if someone shows me it can be done reliably.

I estimate that if we start making green fuel for aircraft, and C02 sequesting we will likely need a reliable 100GWhr 24/7 so around 2400GWhrs in any one 24hr period of time. I know that’s a goal post move from the 50GWhrs needed to run the grid and 30 million cars but it’s realistic when you throw in all transport on electric or green fuel, including shipping home heating etc.. We need a lot of energy.
 
Last edited:

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
Ok, but what I’m trying to say is we’ve no fix for radiation contamination. If we had a Chernobyl size accident in the UK, and the wind blew radioactive material inland, then a large part of the country could be rendered uninhabitable. Hydrogen, by comparison is a pussycat.
Hydrogen, is a good way to store energy, but that energy has to come from somewhere to make the hydrogen, storage is not the only issue it’s making that energy in the first place without fossil fuels.
Take the winter in the uk where we have the shortest days, it’s hard to see solar giving any meaningful energy especially on over cast days. So no amount of that will cut it, then wind sure it’s a good option but the wind is not garenteed, my bet is on water, rivers keep flowing and so do waves on our oceans, if you want renewables we need those stepping up.
Wind and sun just don’t cut it.
Then hydrogen fired power stations when things get bad, to run them we need to be in surplus, at least in summer by a big margin then store that hydrogen for the winter.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 43.2%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.4%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.4%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 5 2.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top