Are they though? Reform has already split into reform and restore, so they aren’t as united as you think.
Maybe, but as far as I see they seems to run as a single entity or in any case the split seems to be irrelevant.
About labour, are they really that bad or do people have unrealistic expectations? I don’t know tbh.
It is probably a mix of the two reasons, as always, adding irrealistic campaign promises to the mix.
serious question: how does that jive with Nigel Farage’s party of morons becoming ever stronger?
Because the others are doing a miserable job, probably. And because Farage’s party is united while the left is splitted in a lot of smaller parties which often fight between them
I think both are true.
Tech innovation is normally faster of the process of approving a new law and of course any law you write trying to regulate something in your state is not applicable everywhere else.
If we regulate AI, we’re likely to create more problems because Boomers don’t understand technology.
True, but that is not limited to AI
Which has nothing to do. There is no reason why it should not be open source and, beside, even if eCall is a black box, all the other software on the car can be open source and/or documented.
To be honest, I think that the same Gulf countries would have been attacked anyway, the goal of Iran is to put pression on the US, they would have just find another excused instead of the US bases.
I know about it.
But ask yourself: why there is a weak demand if an EV car is so much more convient ?
Merz probably just aknoledge that there are problems and currently people do not consider EV cars as a valid alternative.
Or maybe the vast majority of people live in a place/situation where charging an EV car is too of a burden, charging time excluded.
No. It is not something everyone can see.
how do you come to the conclusion that we do not have enough electricity in 2030 to charge all new EV cars? We are not talking about replacing ALL existing cars, it is only about newly bought ones.
Worked in the field.
how do you come to the conclusion that the grid will not be able to support that? The problem is that at the moment big investments into the energy grid are being stalled. But this is not a hard „it can not be done“ but more a „we don’t want to do anything because big oil is telling us not to“
As above, worked in the field. The numbers are agnostic to what big oil tells.
charging stations in small towns are usually not the point anyway. You want lots of high power charging at the highways (which are currently already a lot of and it will only increase over time, more so if the EV market share is growing more).
Not everyone live near a highway. And charging station in small towns are the point unless you accept that to charge your car you need to drive 50km to the nearest highway, if even present.
Charging points in smaller towns are. Matter of political will of local politicians.
True. And national laws supersede local laws, so unless you have not a sufficient number of charging station in small towns EV will not be that usefull. But I am no seeing any laws that force local politicians to solve the problem, it is more the will of the single politician than an organic job.
the myth of „you need a 20kw charging station at home or a EV will be useless!!“ is also not true. You can charge an EV just fine at a normal Schuko outlet. I am, in fact, doing that on my daily driver. You do not need any permissions at all.
I am not saying anything about your myth and I know that I can charge with a normal Schuko outlet.
Problems rises when you live somewhere (condos) where other people do not let install your own outlet in your own garage citing security concern (stupid I agree), or you have just a parking spot in the condos which is not that near to your home. Let’s not start to talk about the cars simply parked on the street…
What do you suggest ? That people use a 50/100 meters long extension cord ? Or to demolish the apartment building (or entire neighborhoods) and rebuild them so that everyone can charge their car from a home outlet ?
These are the problems with the charging stations, not the “20 kw station” myth.
yes, this is one valid concern. But again, we are not talking about today, but a few years from now.
To have ready few years from now you need to start today. I never understand the logic of people like you that think that “few years from now” everything will be ready while today we are not doing anything to have it.
and exactly why is this Not happening?
Because they impose a date withot any planning. Simply deciding the date without a complete planning is useless.
Because there are no clear deadlines or guidances. If there is a law that you can not sell combustion engine vehicles after a certain date, trust me, the supply chains will adapt. But you MUST set a date and STICK TO IT. There is simply no other way to make this industry change course.
It is not because of this. It is because people saw “ok, from 2030 no more ICE cars sold” but do not saw any of the things you have to do to be ready to switch.
Where are the work on the grid upgrade ? Where are the laws to make it easier to install charging stations (basically removing a lot of NIMBY excuses and nonsense) ? Where are the laws to stop any fucking town’s council or HOA equivalent from exercising veto power over panel and wind turbine installation, both for personal use and big power generation ?
There are a lot of thing we should do before deciding that after a certain date we should not sell anymore ICE cars.
I repeat, switching to EV cars is a good idea, I agree on the spirit of the law but I cannot ignore the problems the law has.
It is something everyone can see:
While I agree on the spirit of the law, switching to EV cars are a good idea IF we can solve the problem of recharging them all, but not on the execution.
Simply setting a date without planning for everything else is plain stupid. Something like Germany did closing the nuclear power plants without any plan about how to replace them if not some vague “renewable energy” charade.
Not all EU countries are in the same situation, I agree, and manufacturer are only partially responsible for this, most of the responsability is from past governments that did not have the ball, and foresight, to decide for impopular (at the time) solutions that could have made easier today.
They are the main reason Germany in particular is trying to reverse the ban on new combustion engines
No, they are not. Simply all the necessary infrastructures are not ready (by a long shot) to phase out ICE engines.
/s Technically speaking you rely on it any time you set a password, just saying…
what do you mean “if i know who you are”? you really think they’re gonna reply to you on social media before showing up at your place?
Honestly ? Maybe they will not reply to me on social media but probably yes I (we) would know who they are, simply because they want to be known, it is the essence of their group.
you think four attacks per day are not much? not enough for you to see a problem with right-wing violence?
No, they are a problem even if not caused by right-wing violence. But I would like to know how do they define “right-wing violence”.
Nowaday If you are from the left-wing and I hit you I became automatically a right-wing extremist while I hit you just because you were an asshole to my wife without any political implication.
Ask the World Economic Forum or the Stockholm Environment Institute:
Still make no sense if they don’t say what they consider in the data. CO2 is produced basically by every human activitiy (even breathing) so unless they specified what is included in the 15% the data are useless if not wrong entirely. Numbers can be manipulated to say a lots of things.
(and if you are honest, it totally makes sense that rich people produce an overproportional amount of CO2. They have the money. They are flying. They are consuming more. They have bigger houses and all those fancy Saunas, Whirlpools and second homes. Why are you questioning that?)
And they are the 1% of the total. I get that they might produce more CO2 of me, but for every rich person (how we define rich anyway ? Millionaire ? Billionaire ?) there are millions of people like me and you. And I am afraid that their bigger house, their bigger boats and so on are probably state of the art tech, mine and yours not so much…
For every private jet there are millions of cars used by normal people. There are an estimate of about 32k (registered) planes in the world that make about 100k flight a day. How many millions of cars are on the road daily ? (Hint: Rome alone has about 1.7 millions car on the road daily, make an educated guess on the total). And while a jet can produce more CO2 per person per km, they are offset by the sheer number of the cars which, while they produce about 1/4 of CO2 of the plane, are thousand of times more.
Can you possibly post where to find the original image ? Too small to read anything other than some number.
Yes, I really do think that changing the behaviour of those people who are producing 15% of global emissions will have an effect on global emissions.
And how this 15% is calculated ? What is included ? What is excluded ?
Are you sure that you are not targeting this 1% only because it is more simple to just say “is someone else fault” ?
There are two things: The amount of CO2 produced by private jets is not “near nothing”, it is quite significant and produced only by a small number of people
Quite significant of what ? If the total CO2 produced by the aviation industry is the 2% of the total pollution, even if the private jets produce 50% of this quantity it just is the 1% of the total. And I think that commercial jets are way more and fly way more than private jets so the quantity by which you reduce the pollution is negligible.
Again, it is not to be ignored but maybe it should not be our first target.
We need to get to net zero in order to save the planet and therefore we can’t afford a “it’s only a small amount” way of thinking.
Then maybe we could start to focus on thing that have heavier impact, like cars or industry, instead of focusing on niche things that would not make a difference. But ok, I get it, after all the rich are the cause of everything.
And we can already see how this behaviour of the super rich is tipping opinions against environmental protections.
Let me ask a question: do you really think that changing the behaviour of the 1% richest people would change anything on the pollution problem ?
Not that we don’t need to take also them accountable, but I still fail to see how reducing (or stopping) something this marginal can help.
I’m sure you have seen this whole “Taylor Swift is flying everyday and we have to drink out of paper straws”-meme
Yes, and I found it always stupid while looking at the cars lines on a random morning in every big city in the US.
The problem is that we are trying to solve climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions regardless of who is causing them and why.
It is not really important in my opinion to know who or why
That is leading to a world where some rich asshole in his private jet is flying to Monaco to watch the Formula One, and other people can’t afford to heat their homes.
So we “punish” the rich people without doing anything for the other people. Let’s assume that you ban rich people to fly to Monaco, now what ? The amount of CO₂ produced by air travel is reduced by an amount that, on a global scale, is practically negligible, what good it do to the people who cannot heat their homes ?
That doesn’t work and the current backlash is exactly caused by that. You are forced into the office by those rich CEOs and their private jets and the gov is telling you to drive less and is increasing the taxes for your petrol.
The current backslah is caused by idiots who cannot read and understand facts. As i said flying generates about 2% of the global CO2, how much do you think a group of rich people would generate annually on a global basis ?
Moreover these idiots are the same that if you plan to build a new railways to reduce the cars on the road (and conseguently the pollution) protest just because with variety of stupid reasons, not last the NIMBY aspect.
Now, I agree that every reduction in polllution is good but we should aim for the bigger target (which, normally, is the impopular one) instead of the smaller that make the idiots feel good but does nothing.
What I wanted to say is that there are totally fine reasons to fly or move around, and reasons that are not so great and should maybe be avoided. Our current setup is not reflecting that because it’s simply based on your ability to pay.
You are targeting what, on a global scenario, is a niche in a niche. It make no sense if you want to solve global problems.
You mean “flying” here.
Obviously
Flying frequently generates excessive amounts of CO2. That is killing other people. Killing other people for one’s own fun or comfort is not OK.
Everything we do affect other people, in a way or another, we cannot think otherwise.
Now the next person will come and say, that’s not an individual problem, but a collective or societal one. But lifting the decision to a collective or political level, doesn’t change the fact by one iota that frequently flying generates lots of CO2, and lots of CO2 kills people.
Flying generates only about 2% (against a 72% of the cars for example) on a global basis (%3 if you consider only Europe) of the CO2.
I agree that even if relatively small it is not to understimate but we can probably have better results if we choose to attack other aspects.
The only collective solution can be to have collective boundaries about that.
Or maybe ask for solution that benefit everyone instead of “punishing” only someone, like work from home for everyone who can. Or maybe to just stop to have a NIMBY attitude for everything (be a new solar field, a new railways or a wind turbine farm). Or maybe ask to make it easy to install solar/wind power generation plants for domestic usage.
There are a lot of things we can colletively ask to make thing better for everyone instead of saying that someone else should be stop to do something.
It really depends on the charge/discharge conditions that the particular test is using.
True.
You can do testing in the lab that is way harsher than typical usage or you can make it easier. In terms of this cycle testing for Li-ion I would say that typically the lab testing would be harsher than real world primarily because lab testing is done between 0% and 100% depth of discharge constantly where most people are charging their batteries much before then and only cycling them at high rates periodically.
You are right, but we should see what they want to demostrate in the lab test: that the tech works or to have a way to make a sensational announcement based on some data ?
If you put that battery on the market, the 6000 cycles still stand or they are only a lab result ?
Aside the harsh or easy charge/discharge cycles, what other condition they tested ? A battery on a bench has different problems than a battery on a car on the road.
That said, if the tech works really has announced, it would be great.
a violent neonazi will show up at 3 am at your address with a balaclava. throw a molotov cocktail through your bedroom window and leave before the police arrives.
A balaclava don’t save you if I know who you are.
The point is that all these supposed “violent neonazi” are what they are because they think that they are “anonimous” on Internet but they have not the balls to do it in the real life, else there would be way more attacks you describe, after all there are a lot of people who already expose themself against them in the real life.
The problem is that 6000 cycles in laboratory are not the same than 6000 cycles in real life scenarios.
It would be interesting to put that battery out in the field and to see how it perform in real life conditions (assuming that they are cheap enough to be produced in large volumes)
If they are really that good you are right, but there are always a lot of revolutionary advance in lab that never leave it.
They are bigger in dimension (SUV and whatever else) but the engine displacement did not got bigger, it is basically the same it was 20 or more years ago, with lower consumption I may add.