To clarify the situation with the Essex depot, the following was typed by a driver at the depot, and posted onto a friend's Facebook page;


P&O have bought the main shell site in partnership with a kuate company and they are building a mega large container terminal, it will be the biggest in europe so if you put 2 & 2 together the mobil oil refinery is right in the way thats why the government sold the site to a swedish company a few years back, so they dont take the flac when it closes to make way for the container terminal, and also thats why theres so much work being done at saddlers farm so they link the roads up with the north via the A12 and the A14, there now you know love always XXXXXXX

If you're at a petrol station feel free. Smoke one, even...

You are all worrying about nothing. As we have a Conservative government they will prioritise the motorist and not be sucked into the stupid lobbying of the tree huggers to price the hard working motorist off the road. Read this about their fuel duty stabiliser that will keep prices down: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/theto ... hit-a.html If there is war in Iran and oil prices go up I'm sure George Osborne will ensure that in a time like this when consumers need every penny they've got, the prices at the pump will be kept stable.

You are all worrying about nothing. As we have a Conservative government they will prioritise the motorist and not be sucked into the stupid lobbying of the tree huggers to price the hard working motorist off the road. Read this about their fuel duty stabiliser that will keep prices down: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/theto ... hit-a.html If there is war in Iran and oil prices go up I'm sure George Osborne will ensure that in a time like this when consumers need every penny they've got, the prices at the pump will be kept stable.

I stand corrected in this corner ,wearing a pointed hat.

Just because motor companies produce fully or semi-electric cars this doesn't necessarily mean they want them to be successful. Take the now infamous case of General Motors' EV1 - a vehicle which despite being a remarkable technical (top speed upwards of 80mph, 160 mile range etc.), aesthetic (a highly desirable two-seat coupe) and PR achievement was cynically sabotaged by its manufacturer.

For the past decade energy conscious governments about the globe have repeatedly stumped up huge subsidies and inducements to stimulate the electric car market. GM were quite happy to effectively write-off a fraction of their R&D budget to create prototypes and limited production runs of vehicles if it meant getting their hands on government money. Once safely deposited in the bank they could then announce plans to move into more "exciting" technologies (such as hydrogen fuel-cell), kill off the likes of the EV1 (satisfied buyers were more than a touch annoyed to discover GM reserved the right to recall the EV1 at any time it pleased) and pursue the next round of lavish subsidies.

The EV1 pretty much proved the electric car was - with sufficient corporate commitment - not just a viable product but a genuine competitor for diesel/petrol engine vehicles two or perhaps three decades ago.

That said, even if we moved away from the internal combustion engine to electric or the mythical hydrogen fuel cell it still wouldn't address the fundamental problem of building the rest of the car in a resource-diminished future.

Bear in mind that 'electric' cars are in effect burning fossil fuels in exactly the same proportion as the overall electricity network. In most countries, 'electric' cars are effectively powered by coal, and hardly cleaner than petrol when indirect emissions are considered. In Australia the cost of electricity is going to continue rising significantlhy, and its quite possible that the running costs of electric cars will be similar to petrol.

As for medium- to long-term oil prices, they will largely be driven by the marginal cost of production of shale oil and similar. Crude prices are already in the region where such previously unattractive methods of production are becoming economic.

There are plenty of ways to generate electricity, other than by burning fossil fuels or nuclear. The relatively mature but still-developing technologies of PV cells and wind in combination with the immature technologies of wave, biomass and anaerobic digestion, could all relieve pressure on fossil fuels. Unfortunately they need commitment from governments and the buy-in of big business and if "the market" doesn't see what it considers an acceptable RoI, they will struggle to reach maturity.

Harnassing all the bullsh*t on this sorum would be a good start.

Not really, the digestive system of cattle works as a pretty effective AD plant alone.

Mugwump wrote:Just because motor companies produce fully or semi-electric cars this doesn't necessarily mean they want them to be successful. Take the now infamous case of General Motors' EV1 - a vehicle which despite being a remarkable technical (top speed upwards of 80mph, 160 mile range etc.), aesthetic (a highly desirable two-seat coupe) and PR achievement was cynically sabotaged by its manufacturer. For the past decade energy conscious governments about the globe have repeatedly stumped up huge subsidies and inducements to stimulate the electric car market. GM were quite happy to effectively write-off a fraction of their R&D budget to create prototypes and limited production runs of vehicles if it meant getting their hands on government money. Once safely deposited in the bank they could then announce plans to move into more "exciting" technologies (such as hydrogen fuel-cell), kill off the likes of the EV1 (satisfied buyers were more than a touch annoyed to discover GM reserved the right to recall the EV1 at any time it pleased) and pursue the next round of lavish subsidies. The EV1 pretty much proved the electric car was - with sufficient corporate commitment - not just a viable product but a genuine competitor for diesel/petrol engine vehicles two or perhaps three decades ago. That said, even if we moved away from the internal combustion engine to electric or the mythical hydrogen fuel cell it still wouldn't address the fundamental problem of building the rest of the car in a resource-diminished future. GM has previous in such duplicitous activities, not least being the General Motors Streetcar Conspracy

Mugwump wrote:Just because motor companies produce fully or semi-electric cars this doesn't necessarily mean they want them to be successful. Take the now infamous case of General Motors' EV1 - a vehicle which despite being a remarkable technical (top speed upwards of 80mph, 160 mile range etc.), aesthetic (a highly desirable two-seat coupe) and PR achievement was cynically sabotaged by its manufacturer. For the past decade energy conscious governments about the globe have repeatedly stumped up huge subsidies and inducements to stimulate the electric car market. GM were quite happy to effectively write-off a fraction of their R&D budget to create prototypes and limited production runs of vehicles if it meant getting their hands on government money. Once safely deposited in the bank they could then announce plans to move into more "exciting" technologies (such as hydrogen fuel-cell), kill off the likes of the EV1 (satisfied buyers were more than a touch annoyed to discover GM reserved the right to recall the EV1 at any time it pleased) and pursue the next round of lavish subsidies. The EV1 pretty much proved the electric car was - with sufficient corporate commitment - not just a viable product but a genuine competitor for diesel/petrol engine vehicles two or perhaps three decades ago. That said, even if we moved away from the internal combustion engine to electric or the mythical hydrogen fuel cell it still wouldn't address the fundamental problem of building the rest of the car in a resource-diminished future. GM has previous in such duplicitous activities, not least being the General Motors Streetcar Conspracy