Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

NIMAN

And also a lot of the red tape was lifted to allow this vaccine to be developed quicker (I appreciate some will see this as a negative).

FileNotFound

partyguinness wrote: »

I was invited to book an appointment for my Covid vaccine 2 weeks ago but I am not bothered and in no hurry...

I suppose my opinion is I am a little on the cautious side and a tad uneasy at the speed the vaccines have been rolled out (I'm in England).

While I am pro vaccine, personally when i hear people say this I have no issue at all. You have made a choice and as long as you can accept any potential limitations that may be imposed due to not being vaccinated then its the right choice for you.

Sure I prob won't see a vaccine for a long time yet and to be honest not all that fussed. Will get whatever they offer as soon as its offered but will happily wait until the time comes.

Brian?

magicbastarder wrote: »

hardly a scam, if you're going to spend five grand like that, it's not like you're being conned out of your money.

Absolutely not a scam. Just people being ill informed.

Brian?

suicide_circus wrote: »

A scam in so far as it costs more money than it saves.

How can something be a scan if you can work out the cost v benefits quite east before paying for it. It’s not as if people are being lied to.

magicbastarder

also, peoples' motivation may not just be about the money; they may want to do it for environmental reasons.

how much hot water would a family of five, say, use on a daily basis?

magicbastarder

Brian? wrote: »

How can something be a scan if you can work out the cost v benefits quite east before paying for it. It’s not as if people are being lied to.

also, it's not simply a straightforward calculation of 'it cost me €X per year to heat water before now, so that's how much it will save', if you get *extra* utility from it.

e.g. if you drink 100l of carlsberg per annum, and someone installs a free carlsberg tap in your house, it's only half the picture to claim that the only benefit to you is the cost of the 100l you've been saving.

JimmyVik

Brian? wrote: »

Absolutely not a scam. Just people being ill informed.

No.
Informed people can actually work out what this "Requirement" is costing them.
It sure as hell isnt saving them the money they are told it is saving them.


If this was to be transparent then any work done on a BER in a house should also legally require the seller to calculate the real payback period for the customer (including maintenance and breakdowns etc).

suicide_circus

JimmyVik wrote: »

No.
Informed people can actually work out what this "Requirement" is costing them.
It sure as hell isnt saving them the money they are told it is saving them.


If this was to be transparent then any work done on a BER in a house should also legally require the seller to calculate the real payback period for the customer (including maintenance and breakdowns etc).

And i'd imagine it's mostly old folk hoping to save a few bob getting bamboozled

cnocbui

magicbastarder wrote: »

my father in law did a keeping up with the joneses on getting solar water heating. cost over 5k.
their only shower is electric. the run of pipes from the hot tank to their kitchen sink is so long they have to start running the hot tap several minutes before the hot water reaches it, so he's thinking of getting a quooker.

so the only thing they get for their 5k is the hot water they wash their hands in in the WHB. or when they bath the dog.

A real eco keen German plumber tried to interest me in a solar hot water system about 14 years ago. As an Australian, anyone trying to convince me solar is a viable option at the same lattitude as the southern end of Hudson bay in Canada, where there be polar bears, is a viable idea, has an uphill battle.

So looking at this brochure 14 years ago, I figured that the break even point might be 14-16 years, so I didn't go with it. I suspected the break even point was actually far longer, if not non existent, as it's predicated on nothing in the system ever failling or needing replacing ever. Sorry, I'm generally short on faith. As I am hoping to sell the house soon, I wouldn't have ever seen a benefit anway, as it turns out.

I have read that the building costs pay back period for passive home heating spec vs less stringent spec is somewere around 30 or so years. No thanks.

One of the early things I did on buying my current house - being an Australian who can't tollerate Irish ideas of acceptable water pressure - was to put in a 3bar pump that pressurised the whole system in the house - hot and cold. This allowed me to rip out the pathetic electric shower and put in decent fittings. I have probably saved a year of my lifetme in not having to wait for water to dribble out of taps or to refill toilet cisterns, not to mention being able to have decent showers.

Carbon taxes on home heatitng oil are a typical Irish nonsense that boils my blood. The idea of them persuading people to try retrofitting €15+ K heat pump systems via wall radiators and the effectiveness and pay back period - words fail me.

FileNotFound

cnocbui wrote: »

Carbon taxes on home heatitng oil are a typical Irish nonsense that boils my blood. The idea of them persuading people to try retrofitting €15+ K heat pump systems via wall radiators and the effectiveness and pay back period - words fail me.

Having renovated the house recently and kept the oil heating, not sure they will ever be able to increase the cost of it enough to get me to fork out for the Air to water units, installation and running costs - Given one of the lads lives in a new house with one and has higher electricity bills and my oil bill is quite small - I think I'll stick with oil. Boiler is only 5 yrs old so have 20yrs left - maybe then...

The Raging Bile Duct

FileNotFound wrote: »

Having renovated the house recently and kept the oil heating, not sure they will ever be able to increase the cost of it enough to get me to fork out for the Air to water units, installation and running costs - Given one of the lads lives in a new house with one and has higher electricity bills and my oil bill is quite small - I think I'll stick with oil. Boiler is only 5 yrs old so have 20yrs left - maybe then...

Our boiler was on the way out and was looking at maybe getting the air to water unit. Couldn't justify the price at all when I factored in what needed to be done to the house in order to get ready for installation and went with a new oil boiler that's future proofed to be able to use biofuel should the opportunity present itself.

JimmyVik

FileNotFound wrote: »

Having renovated the house recently and kept the oil heating, not sure they will ever be able to increase the cost of it enough to get me to fork out for the Air to water units, installation and running costs - Given one of the lads lives in a new house with one and has higher electricity bills and my oil bill is quite small - I think I'll stick with oil. Boiler is only 5 yrs old so have 20yrs left - maybe then...

You will be taxed and legislated into it by our government.
They might give you a grant for a couple of thousand but you'll be spending a lot more than that and save pennies.

the purple tin

If the govt was serious about getting people to switch to electric vehicles they would put some proper effort in to enticing people over instead of pointless soundbites.
Put more charge points around the country, offer some decent subsidies and finance options to people who want to switch over, because atm EVs are prohibitively expensive for the average Joe.
Instead of using the stick to beat diesel and petrol users who have no other option, try the carrot for a change.

FileNotFound

the purple tin wrote: »

If the govt was serious about getting people to switch to electric vehicles they would put some proper effort in to enticing people over instead of pointless soundbites.
Put more charge points around the country, offer some decent subsidies and finance options to people who want to switch over, because atm EVs are prohibitively expensive for the average Joe.
Instead of using the stick to beat diesel and petrol users who have no other option, try the carrot for a change.

The total farce that is an infrastructure - and its now 10 or more years since the first leafs with a gov discount was announced - is hindering any move massively.

We should have been putting in charge points not water meters, if they spent the same kind of cash every town and village would have enough of them now.

We'll be waiting for Musk to put them in himself yet

Choochtown

The big problem with electric vehicles is that they don't reduce carbon emissions at all.

Some people actually believe that because they are charged up and don't emit fumes, then there are less emissions. Of course the electricity to charge them still has to be generated and still has a massive carbon footprint. It's just "out of sight out of mind".

However they are a step in the right direction as long as we continue to push for electricity generation from wind, biomass, hydro etc.

Now is probably the time to have a mature scientific discussion on nuclear power for electricity supply also.

cnocbui

Choochtown wrote: »

The big problem with electric vehicles is that they don't reduce carbon emissions at all.

Some people actually believe that because they are charged up and don't emit fumes, then there are less emissions. Of course the electricity to charge them still has to be generated and still has a massive carbon footprint. It's just "out of sight out of mind".

However they are a step in the right direction as long as we continue to push for electricity generation from wind, biomass, hydro etc.

Now is probably the time to have a mature scientific discussion on nuclear power for electricity supply also.

Their total lifetime CO2 impact is far less than many seem to think, because EV's result in double the production of CO2 in their manufacture as do ICE. The number of km an EV has to do before it's actually reducing CO2 may be around 80,000 km. Contrary to the EV fan bois bleatings, the most environmentally responsible thing the government could do would be to encourage ICE car users to continue to use them for as long as possible, not switch to something more 'efficient' as soon as possible.

There, that should fit the bill of unpopular opinion.

FileNotFound

cnocbui wrote: »

Their total lifetime CO2 impact is far less than many seem to think, because EV's result in double the production of CO2 in their manufacture as do ICE. The number of km an EV has to do before it's actually reducing CO2 may be around 80,000 km. Contrary to the EV fan bois bleatings, the most environmentally responsible thing the government could do would be to encourage ICE car users to continue to use them for as long as possible, not switch to something more 'efficient' as soon as possible.

There, that should fit the bill of unpopular opinion.

Well to be blunt 80,000km is about 3 yrs fro me so my ICE is far worse for the environment based on this number.

If you are doing tiny mileage maybe sticking with your current ICE car would be good, then there should also be a big engine urban tax - no need for a mum to collect the kids in a 4.2L Q7 when a 1L Yaris is more than big enough

JimmyVik

FileNotFound wrote: »

Well to be blunt 80,000km is about 3 yrs fro me so my ICE is far worse for the environment based on this number.

If you are doing tiny mileage maybe sticking with your current ICE car would be good, then there should also be a big engine urban tax - no need for a mum to collect the kids in a 4.2L Q7 when a 1L Yaris is more than big enough

What is it wqith Irish people that the solution to everything is to tax people.
FFS we pay enough tax. Start using some imagination to alter behaviour instead of the tax.
I just wrote in another thread that im surprised someone didnt suggest a tax on having covid to bring the numbers down

FileNotFound

JimmyVik wrote: »

What is it wqith Irish people that the solution to everything is to tax people.
FFS we pay enough tax. Start using some imagination to alter behaviour instead of the tax.
I just wrote in another thread that im surprised someone didnt suggest a tax on having covid to bring the numbers down

I was being facetious - but I do think that if we had more focused solutions then these overarching carbon taxes would be less inclined to appear.

Could just create roads that only small cars fit down so big cars cannot enter the city... Not sure its viable though :D:D

But seriously - when it comes to most things money makes sh1t happen - the piddly increases we often see are inneffective though.

cnocbui

FileNotFound wrote: »

Well to be blunt 80,000km is about 3 yrs fro me so my ICE is far worse for the environment based on this number.

If you are doing tiny mileage maybe sticking with your current ICE car would be good, then there should also be a big engine urban tax - no need for a mum to collect the kids in a 4.2L Q7 when a 1L Yaris is more than big enough

I've been driving a 2L petrol for the last 14 years. By my reckoning, I have already been paying a large engine tax for some time.

'Far worse for the environment' is a massive exageration, IMO.

Overheal

cnocbui wrote: »

I've been driving a 2L petrol for the last 14 years. By my reckoning, I have already been paying a large engine tax for some time.

'Far worse for the environment' is a massive exageration, IMO.

How is 2L a large engine?

biko

Overheal wrote: »

How is 2L a large engine?

It is considered pretty large by Irish standards.

FileNotFound

cnocbui wrote: »

I've been driving a 2L petrol for the last 14 years. By my reckoning, I have already been paying a large engine tax for some time.

'Far worse for the environment' is a massive exageration, IMO.

To be fair engine size is relative to driving style and location.

In an urban enviro per km the little Petrol blumotion Polo will do far more miles than the 2L car your drive. On a motorway it will be reversed.

Also the bigger/heavier the car the less efficient in urban enviro.

It's the mummies collecting the kids in 3 & 4L jeeps from the schools that gets me - they cannot even park the things right. I'm sure most of these engines are rarely getting up to the temp they need to operate efficiently.

cnocbui

biko wrote: »

It is considered pretty large by Irish standards.

Yep. I have previously owned 4.1, 3.2 and 3L sixes - in another country - and they were far cheaper to own and run than a piddling little 2L is here.

freshpopcorn

Overheal wrote: »

How is 2L a large engine?

Your in Ireland Crimecall crakes me up when they say the thieves made away in a high powered 320D.

FileNotFound

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Your in Ireland Crimecall crakes me up when they say the thieves made away in a high powered 320D.

Haha I know - in fairness to BMS a 320d has almost 180 donkeys under the hood

I know my 520d could lump up to 140 mph

Overheal

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Your in Ireland Crimecall crakes me up when they say the thieves made away in a high powered 320D.

The US doesn't mainly talk engine displacement volume (and why would we, it's Metric) we discuss number of cylinders, and horsepower, none of which translates to displacement volume. I can't readily find the average US engine displacement. I have a 3.7 L ICE and I have a 1.5 L hybrid, in a race the 320D would utterly rinse the Grand Cherokee but a towbar tug of war might be worth watching.

Jeremy Sproket

Classrooms should have cameras that record video and audio for the protection of the teachers and pupils alike.

Jeremy Sproket

Unless a car's speedometer has KM/H as its dominant or only reading on an analogue speedometer, it should be refused an NCT after 2025 grace period unless it has a digital speedometer that can be set to KM/h.

ie, all cars where MPH is the sole or more prominent unit on the speedometer should be barred off the road starting in 2025.

Varik

Americans seem to go with whatever the manufacture or their PR department go with for units, whatever makes the nice figure.

Cubic inches, cubic centimetre, or litre.

Plenty of bikes and cars where the engine size is very prominently talked about.

60cu, 1200cc, 114cu, 429cu.