EV are they worth it?

[Avocet]

Nuclear! Very clean, and much more green than windmills. Better yet, it's not intermittent.

Maybe if (like me) you lived just over the hill from Sellafield, you'd realise how deluded that statement was. I have to reluctantly accept that a limited amount of nuclear will be necessary for "base load", but in no way, shape or form could it be considered more "green" than wind. I really don't know how you are going to attempt to justify that!

It seems that foolishly, thrashing about for solutions, they have replaced many of the coal stations of old, with waste burning generation, which is just as filthy as coal.

...and you can prove this, of course? Or at the very least, offer some crumb of credible evidence?

You posted the 'simple graph', the 'simple graph' is simply that - a graph of consumption. There is no breakdown of to who, or where the consumption went.

Fair enough, you can't read it. I take it back... It really dosen't matter a tinker's cuss "to who, or where the consumption went", the only important thing is that (despite the number of EVs...

...it went...

If we, as a nation, had been using MORE electricity than in 2005, I'd be willing to listen to whatever half-baked assertions you'd care to make about "milkfloats" stealing the nation's electricity, but as that isn't the case, your accusations were dead in the water before you even started!

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Maybe if (like me) you lived just over the hill from Sellafield, you'd realise how deluded that statement was. I have to reluctantly accept that a limited amount of nuclear will be necessary for "base load", but in no way, shape or form could it be considered more "green" than wind. I really don't know how you are going to attempt to justify that!

Mmmm, worked there - very interesting indeed.

We are spending vaste sums, installing and maintaining wind generators, far more than had we simply accepted nuclear.

...and you can prove this, of course? Or at the very least, offer some crumb of credible evidence?

You missed the national news then???

Fair enough, you can't read it. I take it back...

I cannot read into a 'simple graph' information which does not exist in the simple graph, no. The rest you are obviously making up..

 

[Avocet]

Mmmm, worked there - very interesting indeed.

Then you will know how ruinously expensive it is to maintain, how the ponds that were only supposed to store waste for a short time, have been filled to over-capacity and are now deteriorating seriously, with nowhere else to put the stuff; and how the government has tried (and failed) to bribe the people of West Cumbria into hosting a deep underground waste repository under the Ennerdale valley, won't you?

We are spending vaste sums, installing and maintaining wind generators, far more than had we simply accepted nuclear.

More assertions, but still no proof (or even evidence)!

You missed the national news then???

The bit about the war in Ukraine? Problems in Israel? Jordan's latest boob job...?

...or something even vaguely relevant, perhaps?

I cannot read into a 'simple graph' information which does not exist in the simple graph, no. The rest you are obviously making up..

No, you're just squirming and obfuscating, trying to muddy the waters with utter irrelevances. Just in case you've forgotten, this started out with your accusation that:

"This is what you and your milk float are doing"

and linking to a story that an emergency plan was (almost) put into operation.

I have posted a graph showing that despite mine (and another million) "milk floats" being on the roads now, we are using LESS electricity as a nation than we were in 2005. Therefore, any accusation that the problem is down to EVs, is more of your usual anti-EV bullshit that you seem to be struggling to substantiate, when challenged.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

I didn't say that I am supporting you

Yes, you did.

And it is not my choice that I have to pay to support your (ultimately, likely futile) treatment.

Or are you going to use weazel words to pretend you didn't?

Anyway, the facts of the matter are, smokers don't get cancer and die after their first pack of 20. No one supports them, because after a habit usually lasting decades, they have paid for their cancer, etc treatment several times over. Then there's the massive savings on reduced length of claiming state pension, if they get to claim at all. It's people who led healthy, non-smoking, active, moderate drinking lives you're more likely to be supporting. Eg. my 91 year old father who has had a fortune spent on him by the NHS, carers, etc, etc, etc plus his over 26 and counting years of state pension payments. They're the expensive ones who linger for decades in retirement. Dig deep, battery boy!

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Only the swivel-eyed paranoid fantasy weeblers "know" those things.

But you know feck all.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

No.

That will be you, that will.

New figures show smoking costs billions more than tobacco taxes as consultation on creating a smokefree generation closes - ASH

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is a campaigning public health charity that works to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco.

ash.org.uk

How does revenue from tobacco duties compare to the cost of smoking to the NHS? - Full Fact

Tobacco duties generate around four to five times as much money as smoking costs the NHS to treat.

fullfact.org

You haven't included other factors, dummy. All your gnat's brain can focus on is one aspect. It's far more complicated than you would know. What about the vastly reduced costs in pension payments, elderly care costs, that are unlikely to be much for smokers? No, never entered your mind, did it?

P.S. I've included a few insults for you to come down to your level, as that's appears to be the only way you can communicate.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

and pretty much exactly what I thought. You really haven't a clue about the costs, ave you? an intensive care bed costs about £1600 a day to run. So tell us about all these taxes...

I didn't realise you were an expert on this too. Mind you may be the sort who is a barrack room expert on every bleedin' subject.

What percentage of ICU beds are occupied by those with smoking related diseases? How long does someone with a smoking related disease spend on average in an ICU bed? Same questions for those suffering alcoholic induced morbidities?

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Of course... the other possibility, is that it's you who hasn't thought this through, but I'm sure you will already have considered that...

Again, one blind battery boy leading another.

Do you all hold hands?

 

[morqthana]

You haven't included other factors, dummy. All your gnat's brain can focus on is one aspect. It's far more complicated than you would know. What about the vastly reduced costs in pension payments, elderly care costs, that are unlikely to be much for smokers? No, never entered your mind, did it?

Did it enter your mind to look into all the other factors?

 

[Brigadier]

Yes, you did.



Or are you going to use weazel words to pretend you didn't?

Anyway, the facts of the matter are, smokers don't get cancer and die after their first pack of 20. No one supports them, because after a habit usually lasting decades, they have paid for their cancer, etc treatment several times over. Then there's the massive savings on reduced length of claiming state pension, if they get to claim at all. It's people who led healthy, non-smoking, active, moderate drinking lives you're more likely to be supporting. Eg. my 91 year old father who has had a fortune spent on him by the NHS, carers, etc, etc, etc plus his over 26 and counting years of state pension payments. They're the expensive ones who linger for decades in retirement. Dig deep, battery boy!

I pay into the system that supports us all, as indeed, you probably do too.what I did say was that I wasn't keen on paying for needless draining of that pot (which your kamikaze attitude was / is).


Do you chuck rubbish out of your van window, just because you've paid towards the rubbish collections?

 

[Avocet]

I didn't realise you were an expert on this too.

Married a consultant anaesthetist (recently retired) for 30-odd years. (You do know that it's usually anaesthetists who specialise in intensive care, don't you...?

Mind you may be the sort who is a barrack room expert on every bleedin' subject.

A meagre compliment... but I'll take it, thanks!

What percentage of ICU beds are occupied by those with smoking related diseases? How long does someone with a smoking related disease spend on average in an ICU bed? Same questions for those suffering alcoholic induced morbidities?

Oh, don't get me wrong, there are indeed plenty of other ways of killing yourself and costing society a load of money in the process. Smoking was just the first that came into my head, but I'm not defending the others!

But never mind the chit chat, I'm keen to see the numbers that I'm sure you'll have done carefully, before making the claim that smokers "have paid for their treatment several times over". Will you be posting them up soon?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

But never mind the chit chat, I'm keen to see the numbers that I'm sure you'll have done carefully, before making the claim that smokers "have paid for their treatment several times over". Will you be posting them up soon?

I'll make a guess at some numbers...

Packet of 20, £9 of cost likely tax. 40 per day mentioned, and so £18 per day, going to tax, x360 = £6480 per annum. call it a smoking lifetime of 50 years =£324,000. To that, it would not be unreasonable for interest to be added, until there is a need for that ICU. So that £324,000 would be worth much, much more.

Another consideration, is that not everyone who smokes those 40 per day, will end up in ICU. The vast majority will not.

As said, just an unresearched guess, if you want to provide some better researched numbers, then feel free to correct my numbers...

 

[Avocet]

I'll make a guess at some numbers...

Packet of 20, £9 of cost likely tax. 40 per day mentioned, and so £18 per day, going to tax, x360 = £6480 per annum. call it a smoking lifetime of 50 years =£324,000. To that, it would not be unreasonable for interest to be added, until there is a need for that ICU. So that £324,000 would be worth much, much more.

Another consideration, is that not everyone who smokes those 40 per day, will end up in ICU. The vast majority will not.

As said, just an unresearched guess, if you want to provide some better researched numbers, then feel free to correct my numbers...

Gosh! I knew smoking was expensive, but £9-a-pack for 50 years eh?

Sorry, you fell at the first fence...

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Gosh! I knew smoking was expensive, but £9-a-pack for 50 years eh?

Sorry, you fell at the first fence...

I don't know actual costs, if you know better, then explain with actual figures - without the silly comments..

 

[Avocet]

I don't know actual costs, if you know better, then explain with actual figures - without the silly comments..

What's wrong with the explanations in the links in Post #2875?