Excellent rant by Robert Llewellyn

[Daniel]

Love this video :D

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LPi8EhT_fYA&feature=channel_page

Sorry for the language :p

[Andrewmcm]

Someone needs to rewire Kryten's mouth away from his bottom. He says that the battery-powered car has 100-years on Hydrogen Fuel cells, that it costs a lot to make the pressurised hydrogen for the cars, and that the cars themselves cost a fortune....

Er, that's called research and development. Any new technology initially costs a fortune to design, test, manufacture and prove. It's only when the system is proven that the manufacturing processes are refined and the cars become affordable. How many people had petrol-powered cars (or cars of any kind) 100 years ago? How many people have battery-powered cars now? Was cost a factor when those new technologies came out? I'd imagine it was.

Of course the petro-chem companies are going to exploit the hydrogen technology, they're the people with the resources to plow that kind of money into the infrastructure and R&D required to lower the cost of production of hydrogen. Say what you like about the scruples of those companies but that's the way life is.

Nuclear fusion is a prime example of this cost of research issue - governments worldwide are pouring billions into solving the (very complicated) problems that stand between us and feasible nuclear fusion. Once they are overcome, the agency that gets it right will have solved our energy problems and guaranteed themselves quite literally a mint of money when they manufacture power stations based on that technology.

[Daniel]

Someone needs to rewire Kryten's mouth away from his bottom. He says that the battery-powered car has 100-years on Hydrogen Fuel cells, that it costs a lot to make the pressurised hydrogen for the cars, and that the cars themselves cost a fortune....

Er, that's called research and development. Any new technology initially costs a fortune to design, test, manufacture and prove. It's only when the system is proven that the manufacturing processes are refined and the cars become affordable. How many people had petrol-powered cars (or cars of any kind) 100 years ago? How many people have battery-powered cars now? Was cost a factor when those new technologies came out? I'd imagine it was.

Of course the petro-chem companies are going to exploit the hydrogen technology, they're the people with the resources to plow that kind of money into the infrastructure and R&D required to lower the cost of production of hydrogen. Say what you like about the scruples of those companies but that's the way life is.

Nuclear fusion is a prime example of this cost of research issue - governments worldwide are pouring billions into solving the (very complicated) problems that stand between us and feasible nuclear fusion. Once they are overcome, the agency that gets it right will have solved our energy problems and guaranteed themselves quite literally a mint of money when they manufacture power stations based on that technology.

True. But you still don't get from cars costing a crapload like the Hydrogen fuel cell cars to cars costing an amount people can afford without a lot of time and a lot of R&D. Battery powered cars are doable here and now and if capacitor technology would catch up you would have cars you could plug in for a very short amount of time for a full charge and you wouldn't have the huge weight of batteries.

[jim mcglinchey]

The point that he makes well about hydrogen fuel cells, and this was also stressed in the film Who Killed The Electric Car, which he must also have watched, is that hydrogen can be a pure stalling issue by the car and oil industries. A deliberate dead end.

Its in the corporate interest to keep things as they are, insted of doing the bleeding obvious thing and develop electric cars and the associated infrastructure.

[Andrewmcm]

Oh I dunno - I know of a few industrial companies who are throwing bad money after good at fuel cells in order to make them work to a high level of efficiency. I doubt they would do that if there wasn't a real future in the technology.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Typical liberal/left rant that completely ignores a few very important realities.

1. People WILL NOT accept any car that restricts their mobility. Electric cars have limited range and take time to recharge.

2. Electric cars operating in cold climates require heat for the passengers. Battery performance goes in the tank in cold temperatures. Nice little fact no one in the Electric car lobby has EVER ONCE mentioned. Could it be because it makes the whole point moot 6months of the year in most of the US, All of Canada, and Most of Europe?

3. Hydrogen cars and fuel cells would use a lot of the infrastructure we have now to refuel. Electric cars on the surface are logical but the amount of extra drain on the grid requires more coal/nuclear/hydro power. Wind power cannot provide the extra kilowatts that the drain of millions of electric cars charging up.

4. This is the most important one. If the economics of the hydrogen car make NO sense to Robert, then explain why an intelligent company such as Honda would spend MILLIONS on developing the technology. His arguments don't hold water. This is coming.....oh and by the way. I realize it will take electricity to make the hydrogen but once that technology comes along and it will.....then the electric car will be a foot note

[MrJan]

I've always liked Robert Llewelyn but he comes across as a right cock on this video and I had to stop it after a bit.

Okay so he doesn't like hydrogen but we need to move from oil and electric just doesn't work, you switch one fossil fuel for another but have the added pain in the proverbial of having to plug your car in for hours, we're used to refilling at petrol stations, we aren't used to having to plug a car in whenever we stop. Seriously I got rid of my last mobile phone because I had to recharge it most days, I don't want a car that's the same. And I don't want the time and money wasted on developing capacitators baecause we still end up putting all the power back to power stations and continue with the pollution thing.

I'm also a little confused by the rant in general because Kryten is a bit of a car person and is always going on about V8s on Scrapheap but ultimately I've always thought that hydrogen ticks more boxes than electric in terms of vehicular future. That said I will wait until I see the Bee Four ERV in the British Hillclimb Championship next year, that's if it ever happens :mark:

[Bezza]

Kryten will be back as well....

http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/news/2008/09/19/new-red-dwarf-specials-confirmed/

[Mark]

You can keep saying about advances in battery technology as much as you like, the fact is that it doesn't look like we are going to have battery technology which is light enough and gives sufficient range to be a practical mainstream car.

Hydrogen fuel cells on the other hand seem to be able to store enough fuel to get you to where you are going and can be refulled in minutes, just like ordinary cars. Although hydrogren is rather more tricky to handle than petrol..

I've seen hydrogen fuel cells mentioned in other applcations such as laptops, and in those cases they were rechargeable from the mains like a normal battery. (not sure how that worked mind, wouldn't you need to put water in it?)

If you could have an electric car that you could charge up from home and refuel in minutes when you are away from home, then we're all good!

Yes, hydrogren at the moment needs electricity to produce, but generating electricity allows many more clean alternatives than burning oil.

[Azumanga Davo]

When asked if his rant was the workings of a sane man, did he answer "I'm fine, thank you Susan"? ;)

[jim mcglinchey]

...its about this time of year that his head goes in for service..

[Bezza]

All in all, todays been a bit of a bummer, hasn't it sir?

[Daniel]

Well the Chinese have already developed an affordable plug in hybrid :)

http://www.dailytech.com/Chinese+BYD+Launches+Worlds+First+Mass+Produced+Pl ugin+Hybrid/article13736.htm

[Daniel]

I've seen hydrogen fuel cells mentioned in other applcations such as laptops, and in those cases they were rechargeable from the mains like a normal battery. (not sure how that worked mind, wouldn't you need to put water in it?).

Ummm no :p

You're thinking about methanol fuel cells :)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=laptop+fuel+cells&meta=

Hydrogen fuel cells are a long way off being commercially viable. At this point in time Jim's statement holds more water than anyone elses tbh.

You just don't go from a car costing millions to a car costing what a family hatchback costs now in anywhere near the time capacitors will reduce in price to make it viable.

I've actually ridden many times in a bus powered by a Hydrogen fuel cell back in Perth but the corker was the price :) A cool 3 million dollars Australian. They do however look pretty darn cool going down the road with steam billowing out the back I must say. When I first saw one I half expected it to accelerate to 88mph and then leave two flaming trails on the road.

Another thing which confuses my climate change denying brain. Water vapour? Isn't that meant to be a greenhouse gas?

*scratches chin at the thought that the "solution" to the problem is merely an expensive way to worsen the situation which may or may not actually exist*

[Mark in Oshawa]

If water vapour is a greenhouse gas and will cause global warming, head you your local extermination centre with about 5 Billion plus people so the rest of us will have a normal climate. It is over if you consider water vapour a greenhouse gas. That means mother nature is trying to kill us!

[Daniel]

If water vapour is a greenhouse gas and will cause global warming, head you your local extermination centre with about 5 Billion plus people so the rest of us will have a normal climate. It is over if you consider water vapour a greenhouse gas. That means mother nature is trying to kill us!

Lets get this straight, I don't actually believe man is causing any warming that this planet is experiencing. But water vapour is actually part of the greenhouse effect. If you don't believe this then head to the local extermination centre together with the people who think the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and so on and so forth. The climate of the planet won't return to normal but at least we will see a steep reduction in the amount of completely uninformed chatter :)

Being sensible though water vapour is the main thing that stop the surface of the earth being bloody cold and uninhabitable!

[BDunnell]

Lets get this straight, I don't actually believe man is causing any warming that this planet is experiencing.

I note the use of the word 'believe'.

[Daniel]

I note the use of the word 'believe'.

Well the whole global warming thing is up for debate so I think it is a case of believing or not isn't it?

[BDunnell]

Well the whole global warming thing is up for debate so I think it is a case of believing or not isn't it?

I don't see why there needs to be a debate — after all, there isn't on other scientific subjects on which some opinion is divided, like passive smoking — but I'm feeling ill and grouchy so can't be bothered to carry on with this line of thought.

[Daniel]

I don't see why there needs to be a debate — after all, there isn't on other scientific subjects on which some opinion is divided, like passive smoking — but I'm feeling ill and grouchy so can't be bothered to carry on with this line of thought.

I think just about everyone is ill at the moment :mark: Caroline is rather sick and grouchy too! :p

The reason why there is so much debate is the stakes are so high. IF the scaremongering is true then there needs to be a major change in the lives of just about everyone in the developed world. If it's not right then that change will all be for nothing.

[Bezza]

Global warming is partially true, but used as an easy excuse for do-gooders to have a go at the public.

We are still coming out of an ice age, so the Earth is still warming. Like a recession and a boom, the temperature of the Earth is always going one way or the other!

[AndyRAC]

How long before we're all back in horse drawn carriages???

[Mark in Oshawa]

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. But Mother Nature produces it and as it has been pointed out, it keeps life on this planet. My point is that when natural gases as part our enviroment are being termed part of the problem, THAT is a problem.

There is a debate for sure and their should be. The worst thing Al Gore did for his side of the arguement is to declare their is no debate. Stupid jerk has never been right in all his years of politics and he is wrong on this.

There maybe global warming. Man MAY even be a factor in causing it. My point is that no one can really know for sure. The science involved in tracking and understanding climate for just a small part of the earth's surface is complicated enough. There is no computer model to control and analyze what causes the whole earth's climate to change. There are a lot of educated guesses. Many of the scientest swho have come out for global warming get their funding from people who have been pushing this agenda. Many against have a lot of funding from people who want to deny that it is happening. So you can toss all those people out and look at those who have no bias emotionally and just want the truth. They too are split on the result

Robert Llewellyn is a typical libreal in his rant here. He believes in tolerance and openess until you disagree with his libreal stance. So he goes off on James May and Jermey Clarkson because they are both car guys and in Jeremy's case, a right winger who is his ideological enemy. Clarkson would carve this guy up like a Christmas turkey in a debate and I am going to state I would rather live in a world run by Clarkson than the dictatorial nanny state ramblings of Robert Llewellyn.

[Daniel]

[quote="Mark in Oshawa"]Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. But Mother Nature produces it and as it has been pointed out, it keeps life on this planet. My point is that when natural gases as part our enviroment are being termed part of the problem, THAT is a problem.

There is a debate for sure and their should be. The worst thing Al Gore did for his side of the arguement is to declare their is no debate. Stupid jerk has never been right in all his years of politics and he is wrong on this.


There maybe global warming. Man MAY even be a factor in causing it. My point is that no one can really know for sure. The science involved in tracking and understanding climate for just a small part of the earth's surface is complicated enough. There is no computer model to control and analyze what causes the whole earth's climate to change. There are a lot of educated guesses. Many of the scientest swho have come out for global warming get their funding from people who have been pushing this agenda. Many against have a lot of funding from people who want to deny that it is happening. So you can toss all those people out and look at those who have no bias emotionally and just want the truth. They too are split on the result

[Garry Walker]

Robert Llewellyn is a typical libreal in his rant here. He believes in tolerance and openess until you disagree with his libreal stance. So he goes off on James May and Jermey Clarkson because they are both car guys and in Jeremy's case, a right winger who is his ideological enemy.

Exactly. Libtards claim to be tolerant, but in reality, are the most intolerant of people.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Exactly. Libtards claim to be tolerant, but in reality, are the most intolerant of people.

*generalisation overload*

There are plenty of intolerant conservatives out there too.

[MrJan]

There are plenty of intolerant conservatives out there too.

Comes with the territory :D

[BDunnell]

*generalisation overload*

There are plenty of intolerant conservatives out there too.

Our right-wing friends here seem to have a problem with those on the left expressing an opinion that is different from their own, which is ironic given the criticisms they make regarding 'intolerance'.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dunnell. I think Llleywellan is entitled to be wrong. I am not asking for him to be silenced. Funny....the only people who really try to control free speech are people on the left. Look no further than the Democratic party in the US trying to bring in a "fairness doctrine" to stop talk radio in the US. Or in Canada we have the Libreal party creating human rights panels that investigate journalists and radio personalities for "hate" speech. Meanwhile people can call Christians and right wingers "Nazis" and thugs and THIS is apparently ok.

I like rational arguments myself and that is what I did to debunk this nebulous idea that the industrial complex is out to get the electric car. That is crap...GM is trying to put one on the market in 2 years in North America....

[BDunnell]

Funny....the only people who really try to control free speech are people on the left.

That is complete nonsense, and I suspect you know it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mr. Dunnell. It isn't nonsense at all. Most of the attacks on free speech in North America have NOT come from people and parties of the right. The "Fairness Doctrine" being pushed by the far left of the US democratic party in the US is to basically put talk radio out of business. Why is this vital? Simple. The top talk shows on US radio by FAR are the rabble rousers and opinionated people of the right. The top 5 talk shows are: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and Michael Gallagher. Not ONE of these people is anything close to anything but conservatives. All under this proposed legislation would be basically shut down. That is an infringement of free speech. If you wonder WHY all of them are successful when people on the Left like Al Franken and Rosie O'Donnell not been able to make any headway on this very political format is because they cant draw an audience. Their listeners are few and bored out of their minds. Rush may be a blow hard (I would say this even though I often have seen merit in some of his arguments) but he is entertaining. Yet the political left in the US want to bring in this "Fairness Doctrine" which would basically kill your average political talk show..which is really just political satire at times.

I also know that the CRTC in Canada has often been all over private broadcasters who have had the odd right wing pundit state things over the years that might be deemed controversial yet broadcasters on the left leaning state run CBC have said some just awful and controversial things and no one bleats a word.

Mr. Dunnell I don't doubt there are a lot of right wing people who would love to silence some of their opponents but the people who speak the most about being open minded and full of moderation turn into the most controlling people when it comes to using the state legislate speech. It is the death knell for free thought in my opinion and I have seen a lot of it being encouraged by people who claim to know better....

[BDunnell]

Mr. Dunnell. It isn't nonsense at all. Most of the attacks on free speech in North America have NOT come from people and parties of the right. The "Fairness Doctrine" being pushed by the far left of the US democratic party in the US is to basically put talk radio out of business. Why is this vital? Simple. The top talk shows on US radio by FAR are the rabble rousers and opinionated people of the right. The top 5 talk shows are: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and Michael Gallagher. Not ONE of these people is anything close to anything but conservatives. All under this proposed legislation would be basically shut down. That is an infringement of free speech. If you wonder WHY all of them are successful when people on the Left like Al Franken and Rosie O'Donnell not been able to make any headway on this very political format is because they cant draw an audience. Their listeners are few and bored out of their minds. Rush may be a blow hard (I would say this even though I often have seen merit in some of his arguments) but he is entertaining. Yet the political left in the US want to bring in this "Fairness Doctrine" which would basically kill your average political talk show..which is really just political satire at times.

I have listened to some of those shows and I suspect that many proper satirists would decry the notion that they are in any way satirical.

What I find deeply hypocritical is the way in which so many on the right decry 'political correctness' and yet are so easily offended themselves by the non-mainstream.