The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

pblakeney

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

photonic69 said:

The future is Hydrogen and not electric, or maybe a combination of both. Fuel cells plus battery backups. Far more convenient and you can fill up in a few minutes. Easier to store/produce hydrogen at times when there is less demand on the grid (night time etc), OK solar is out but windfarms etc.
The trouble is that demand for energy across the board becomes higher and higher and more expensive. Homes requiring more electricity to operate heat pumps is one. We will suffer from "energy anxiety" instead of "range anxiety". We might also see transport poverty where people that cannot afford the new hydrogen/electric cars are stuck with older ICE cars and fuel stations becoming few and far between meaning you might have to travel 15-20 miles to fill up. Also likely to be heavily taxed to reduce use.
Meh, whatever way you look at it, the future looks shite!

A slight deviation if you don't mind. How were people's heat pumps coping during the cold spell? I read anecdotal horror stories.

Ours works absolutely fine during the cold, BUT, it uses a lot of electricity! £16-20 per day depending on what else has been used. (Ours is an 1850s (with extensions) end of terrace cottage.)

Good that it worked. Not exactly performing as sold imo.
I don't use that amount of gas and electricity combined in a week for heating.

rick_chasey

Is it air or ground?

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

photonic69 said:

The future is Hydrogen and not electric, or maybe a combination of both. Fuel cells plus battery backups. Far more convenient and you can fill up in a few minutes. Easier to store/produce hydrogen at times when there is less demand on the grid (night time etc), OK solar is out but windfarms etc.
The trouble is that demand for energy across the board becomes higher and higher and more expensive. Homes requiring more electricity to operate heat pumps is one. We will suffer from "energy anxiety" instead of "range anxiety". We might also see transport poverty where people that cannot afford the new hydrogen/electric cars are stuck with older ICE cars and fuel stations becoming few and far between meaning you might have to travel 15-20 miles to fill up. Also likely to be heavily taxed to reduce use.
Meh, whatever way you look at it, the future looks shite!

A slight deviation if you don't mind. How were people's heat pumps coping during the cold spell? I read anecdotal horror stories.

Ours works absolutely fine during the cold, BUT, it uses a lot of electricity! £16-20 per day depending on what else has been used. (Ours is an 1850s (with extensions) end of terrace cottage.)

Good that it worked. Not exactly performing as sold imo.
I don't use that amount of gas and electricity combined in a week for heating.

They are **not** a straight replacement for a gas boiler. If you do install them that way, you'll use approximately the same number of kWh, but at Electricity rates. To work without emptying your bank account you need to insulate the house to reduce the heating load.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

photonic69 said:

The future is Hydrogen and not electric, or maybe a combination of both. Fuel cells plus battery backups. Far more convenient and you can fill up in a few minutes. Easier to store/produce hydrogen at times when there is less demand on the grid (night time etc), OK solar is out but windfarms etc.
The trouble is that demand for energy across the board becomes higher and higher and more expensive. Homes requiring more electricity to operate heat pumps is one. We will suffer from "energy anxiety" instead of "range anxiety". We might also see transport poverty where people that cannot afford the new hydrogen/electric cars are stuck with older ICE cars and fuel stations becoming few and far between meaning you might have to travel 15-20 miles to fill up. Also likely to be heavily taxed to reduce use.
Meh, whatever way you look at it, the future looks shite!

A slight deviation if you don't mind. How were people's heat pumps coping during the cold spell? I read anecdotal horror stories.

Ours works absolutely fine during the cold, BUT, it uses a lot of electricity! £16-20 per day depending on what else has been used. (Ours is an 1850s (with extensions) end of terrace cottage.)

Good that it worked. Not exactly performing as sold imo.
I don't use that amount of gas and electricity combined in a week for heating.

They are **not** a straight replacement for a gas boiler. If you do install them that way, you'll use approximately the same number of kWh, but at Electricity rates. To work without emptying your bank account you need to insulate the house to reduce the heating load.

So they are a replacement for a boiler, but cost more?

photonic69

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

photonic69 said:

The future is Hydrogen and not electric, or maybe a combination of both. Fuel cells plus battery backups. Far more convenient and you can fill up in a few minutes. Easier to store/produce hydrogen at times when there is less demand on the grid (night time etc), OK solar is out but windfarms etc.
The trouble is that demand for energy across the board becomes higher and higher and more expensive. Homes requiring more electricity to operate heat pumps is one. We will suffer from "energy anxiety" instead of "range anxiety". We might also see transport poverty where people that cannot afford the new hydrogen/electric cars are stuck with older ICE cars and fuel stations becoming few and far between meaning you might have to travel 15-20 miles to fill up. Also likely to be heavily taxed to reduce use.
Meh, whatever way you look at it, the future looks shite!

A slight deviation if you don't mind. How were people's heat pumps coping during the cold spell? I read anecdotal horror stories.

Ours works absolutely fine during the cold, BUT, it uses a lot of electricity! £16-20 per day depending on what else has been used. (Ours is an 1850s (with extensions) end of terrace cottage.)

Good that it worked. Not exactly performing as sold imo.
I don't use that amount of gas and electricity combined in a week for heating.

They are **not** a straight replacement for a gas boiler. If you do install them that way, you'll use approximately the same number of kWh, but at Electricity rates. To work without emptying your bank account you need to insulate the house to reduce the heating load.

So they are a replacement for a boiler, but cost more?

It is really hard to make a Victorian Terrace or end terrace house insulated enough to make a heat pump worthwhile at current energy costs without doing major structural work and redecoration. I've done everything we can in ours short of stripping plaster off the internal walls and battening out with insulation and plasterboarding and skimming. Plus we can't do this downstairs due to plaster cornicing. Well, I could do but the price would be extortionate. Same with our loft conversion - it was made 18 years ago when multifoil insulation was the rage. It works but could be better. Choice - hack all plasterboard off, pull down all foil insulation, put 50mm kingspan between rafters and then multifoil over the top, replasterboard, skim, redecorate OR scaffold, remove all roof tiles and felt, put 50mm kingspan between rafters, put new felt and retile using existing plus new tiles. Either is going to be expensive.

I think I'd rather buy some beer and brandy and get too pissed to care.....

rjsterry

Per kWh, yes, but crucially are not reliant on burning stuff.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

Per kWh, yes, but crucially are not reliant on burning stuff.

Hello Captain Obvious.

Pross

photonic69 said:

The future is Hydrogen and not electric, or maybe a combination of both. Fuel cells plus battery backups. Far more convenient and you can fill up in a few minutes. Easier to store/produce hydrogen at times when there is less demand on the grid (night time etc), OK solar is out but windfarms etc.
The trouble is that demand for energy across the board becomes higher and higher and more expensive. Homes requiring more electricity to operate heat pumps is one. We will suffer from "energy anxiety" instead of "range anxiety". We might also see transport poverty where people that cannot afford the new hydrogen/electric cars are stuck with older ICE cars and fuel stations becoming few and far between meaning you might have to travel 15-20 miles to fill up. Also likely to be heavily taxed to reduce use.
Meh, whatever way you look at it, the future looks shite!

I'm sure we already do, plenty of people can't afford to own and run a car and have to travel on public transport although even that can be unaffordable (others risk running a car illegally as they can't afford VED, insurance or essential repairs). I don't disagree it will get worse from a car ownership point of view though. Some may argue that's a good thing as it will reduce car usage but it also feels very bad from an equality point of view and, for example, would limit the work options for more people seeking employment

rick_chasey

That's why you want to move away from a car orientated model, right?

Stevo_666

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

I'm sure there will be a few diehard petrolheads just as there are steam enthusiasts now, but this does sound a bit like all those people who dismissed the internet as a fad.

I think you'll find its much more than just a few diehard petrol heads. Some of the views on this thread are very much in the minority.

But that is a result of years of prioritising personal motor vehicles over any other kind of transport solution, few people can envisage an acceptable alternative. I would guess that if there is a similar question asked on a Dutch forum the views would be far from a minority.

This is isn't Holland so not relevant.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

I'm sure there will be a few diehard petrolheads just as there are steam enthusiasts now, but this does sound a bit like all those people who dismissed the internet as a fad.

I think you'll find its much more than just a few diehard petrol heads. Some of the views on this thread are very much in the minority.

But that is a result of years of prioritising personal motor vehicles over any other kind of transport solution, few people can envisage an acceptable alternative. I would guess that if there is a similar question asked on a Dutch forum the views would be far from a minority.

This is isn't Holland so not relevant.

You see the dat I posted from 2014 that showed car ownership in the Netherlands is higher than the UK?

photonic69

I guess it was like when man first decided that having a horse in a paddock next to his house was a fantastic idea so that he could easily get from his home to another town to barter goods for food etc. He ain't never gonna give that up... until the next best thing came along that made it even easier. And now we have the car. Unless there is something better and easier we are unlikely to give it up without a fight.

Personal mini helicopters. Now there's a thing.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

What is Dutch car ownership like compared to here?

This is a bit out of date but makes interesting reading. You would expect car ownership in a flat more densely populated country with better public transport and active travel infrastructure, and a better climate, to be lower wouldn't you?

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

Does the UK/NL comparison challenge anyone's notions that cars as a possession are a problem as such? Or does it suggest the issue is a lack of alternatives to how they are used?

It's quite interesting to see how low down that list the UK is and also that the top countries are a mix of small, high population density countries and large low density countries where everything is miles away. You would think that somewhere like Monaco could more or less eliminate car reliance but then it is a very rich nation where the inhabitants probably own several cars each and take them for a spin for fun.

Edit

In answer though it certainly seems it is relatively easy to reduce car usage without having to reduce car ownership and people can then make a decision for themselves on whether the cost of retaining a car for the amount of driving they do is worthwhile. The key is having a very good public transport system that significantly reduces car reliance , you can then take other measures to deter unnecessary car use (which I think most have been saying all along).

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

I'm sure there will be a few diehard petrolheads just as there are steam enthusiasts now, but this does sound a bit like all those people who dismissed the internet as a fad.

I think you'll find its much more than just a few diehard petrol heads. Some of the views on this thread are very much in the minority.

But that is a result of years of prioritising personal motor vehicles over any other kind of transport solution, few people can envisage an acceptable alternative. I would guess that if there is a similar question asked on a Dutch forum the views would be far from a minority.

This is isn't Holland so not relevant.

You see the dat I posted from 2014 that showed car ownership in the Netherlands is higher than the UK?

No.

First.Aspect

.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

What is Dutch car ownership like compared to here?

This is a bit out of date but makes interesting reading. You would expect car ownership in a flat more densely populated country with better public transport and active travel infrastructure, and a better climate, to be lower wouldn't you?

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

Does the UK/NL comparison challenge anyone's notions that cars as a possession are a problem as such? Or does it suggest the issue is a lack of alternatives to how they are used?

It's quite interesting to see how low down that list the UK is and also that the top countries are a mix of small, high population density countries and large low density countries where everything is miles away. You would think that somewhere like Monaco could more or less eliminate car reliance but then it is a very rich nation where the inhabitants probably own several cars each and take them for a spin for fun.

Edit

In answer though it certainly seems it is relatively easy to reduce car usage without having to reduce car ownership and people can then make a decision for themselves on whether the cost of retaining a car for the amount of driving they do is worthwhile. The key is having a very good public transport system that significantly reduces car reliance , you can then take other measures to deter unnecessary car use (which I think most have been saying all along).

Oh don't be so reasonable.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

Yes but to get what you want to happen (and which everyone with half a brain knows what has to happen) you aren't helping things by making inequalities even worse. Encourage people to chose wisely, rather than trying to remove the choice, that's the way forward.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

What is Dutch car ownership like compared to here?

This is a bit out of date but makes interesting reading. You would expect car ownership in a flat more densely populated country with better public transport and active travel infrastructure, and a better climate, to be lower wouldn't you?

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

Does the UK/NL comparison challenge anyone's notions that cars as a possession are a problem as such? Or does it suggest the issue is a lack of alternatives to how they are used?

It's quite interesting to see how low down that list the UK is and also that the top countries are a mix of small, high population density countries and large low density countries where everything is miles away. You would think that somewhere like Monaco could more or less eliminate car reliance but then it is a very rich nation where the inhabitants probably own several cars each and take them for a spin for fun.

Edit

In answer though it certainly seems it is relatively easy to reduce car usage without having to reduce car ownership and people can then make a decision for themselves on whether the cost of retaining a car for the amount of driving they do is worthwhile. The key is having a very good public transport system that significantly reduces car reliance , you can then take other measures to deter unnecessary car use (which I think most have been saying all along).

Oh don't be so reasonable.

Sorry, what I meant is they should confiscate everyone's cars and burn them. They should start with the most expensive and work their way down so the richest lose their cars first.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

What is Dutch car ownership like compared to here?

This is a bit out of date but makes interesting reading. You would expect car ownership in a flat more densely populated country with better public transport and active travel infrastructure, and a better climate, to be lower wouldn't you?

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

Does the UK/NL comparison challenge anyone's notions that cars as a possession are a problem as such? Or does it suggest the issue is a lack of alternatives to how they are used?

It's quite interesting to see how low down that list the UK is and also that the top countries are a mix of small, high population density countries and large low density countries where everything is miles away. You would think that somewhere like Monaco could more or less eliminate car reliance but then it is a very rich nation where the inhabitants probably own several cars each and take them for a spin for fun.

Edit

In answer though it certainly seems it is relatively easy to reduce car usage without having to reduce car ownership and people can then make a decision for themselves on whether the cost of retaining a car for the amount of driving they do is worthwhile. The key is having a very good public transport system that significantly reduces car reliance , you can then take other measures to deter unnecessary car use (which I think most have been saying all along).

Oh don't be so reasonable.

Sorry, what I meant is they should confiscate everyone's cars and burn them. They should start with the most expensive and work their way down so the richest lose their cars first.

But what about the old lady who still has her Bugatti from when she had a large family, and doesn't want to downsize?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

Yes but to get what you want to happen (and which everyone with half a brain knows what has to happen) you aren't helping things by making inequalities even worse. Encourage people to chose wisely, rather than trying to remove the choice, that's the way forward.

We're already doing the encourage bit. I think we have a choice of making things a bit more uncomfortable now, or very uncomfortable in 10-20 years time.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

You seem to be quite happy to make it worse, although tbh it's no skin off my nose. FA has the right idea - see his post above.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

What is Dutch car ownership like compared to here?

This is a bit out of date but makes interesting reading. You would expect car ownership in a flat more densely populated country with better public transport and active travel infrastructure, and a better climate, to be lower wouldn't you?

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

Does the UK/NL comparison challenge anyone's notions that cars as a possession are a problem as such? Or does it suggest the issue is a lack of alternatives to how they are used?

It's quite interesting to see how low down that list the UK is and also that the top countries are a mix of small, high population density countries and large low density countries where everything is miles away. You would think that somewhere like Monaco could more or less eliminate car reliance but then it is a very rich nation where the inhabitants probably own several cars each and take them for a spin for fun.

Edit

In answer though it certainly seems it is relatively easy to reduce car usage without having to reduce car ownership and people can then make a decision for themselves on whether the cost of retaining a car for the amount of driving they do is worthwhile. The key is having a very good public transport system that significantly reduces car reliance , you can then take other measures to deter unnecessary car use (which I think most have been saying all along).

Oh don't be so reasonable.

Sorry, what I meant is they should confiscate everyone's cars and burn them. They should start with the most expensive and work their way down so the richest lose their cars first.

Has Rick hacked your account?

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

Yes but to get what you want to happen (and which everyone with half a brain knows what has to happen) you aren't helping things by making inequalities even worse. Encourage people to chose wisely, rather than trying to remove the choice, that's the way forward.

We're already doing the encourage bit. I think we have a choice of making things a bit more uncomfortable now, or very uncomfortable in 10-20 years time.

We aren't. There is miles room for more. Not having some of the most expensive rail travel in the world would be one thing we might do. Is that better or worse than just making ALL travel more expensive? Think carrot, not stick.

mully79

Where I live we have no busses, no railway, no pavement or street lights in one direction. The petrol station/supermarket is a 10 mile round trip. The thought of us using anything other than a car is as crazy as a flying taxi.

pangolin

mully79 said:

Where I live we have no busses, no railway, no pavement or street lights in one direction. The petrol station/supermarket is a 10 mile round trip. The thought of us using anything other than a car is as crazy as a flying taxi.

Currently

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

You seem to be quite happy to make it worse, although tbh it's no skin off my nose. FA has the right idea - see his post above.

Not happy, I just think it's unavailable. We leap out of the moving car and get a few cuts and bruises or stay in until it hits a wall. I don't think anything will get easier by delaying.

pblakeney

mully79 said:

Where I live we have no busses, no railway, no pavement or street lights in one direction. The petrol station/supermarket is a 10 mile round trip. The thought of us using anything other than a car is as crazy as a flying taxi.

Come the sunlit days of Ricktopia you will be escorted to live in the city.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

Yes but to get what you want to happen (and which everyone with half a brain knows what has to happen) you aren't helping things by making inequalities even worse. Encourage people to chose wisely, rather than trying to remove the choice, that's the way forward.

We're already doing the encourage bit. I think we have a choice of making things a bit more uncomfortable now, or very uncomfortable in 10-20 years time.

We aren't. There is miles room for more. Not having some of the most expensive rail travel in the world would be one thing we might do. Is that better or worse than just making ALL travel more expensive? Think carrot, not stick.

Fine. Take your time. By the time you get around to it there will just be a choice of sticks and no carrot.

mully79

..

pblakeney said:

mully79 said:

Where I live we have no busses, no railway, no pavement or street lights in one direction. The petrol station/supermarket is a 10 mile round trip. The thought of us using anything other than a car is as crazy as a flying taxi.

Come the sunlit days of Ricktopia you will be escorted to live in the city.

The Rictopians are going to turn up here and realise they have been tricked into living with the herd.