Speaking of national treasures, do you think the Crown Jewels of England that tourist see are the real jewels? Or are they fake like most national treasures?

@@PlanetEarth3141 technically, they're stolen goods. The fake ones will be proceeds of crime.

@@PlanetEarth3141 Planning to steal them?

I remember watching Red Dwarf in the mid - ish 1980's. I left the UK in November, 1988 so never got to watch episodes / series after this date. I've only known Robert Llewellyn from the Fully Charged KZfaq videos. I know nothing about his earlier career.

@@shirleysavoury5638 wow I was born in November, 1988. Grew up in the US and as a kid I rented Red Dwarf VHS tapes because it wasn't really on tv in the states except rarely on PBS. I didn't even know Robert Llewellyn was on youtube until this video.

I didn't know he was on KZfaq either, I thought he was working as a small off duty czechoslovakian traffic warden

@@Cu-Co I thought he was in the Bolivian Navy, on manoeuvres in the South Pacific?

@@RyanKeane9 Well, he couldn't hang around here; he had to go away and take the penguin for a walk... :)

Or Nikki Gordon Bloomfield of Transport Evolved - or railway preservation fans like Chris Eden Green who will not hesitate in identifying that the dissolving of public rail by the 1960s have bound us to the roads and the emissions on them

‘Not just biked’ on YT is amazing. Highly recommended.

Yes! Get Alan Fisher on!

A few questions. Why do you think we didn't already have an "energy class divide" ? . Are you suggesting the current issue (unintended pun?) is caused by the (so far) partial shift towards new sources of energy, rather than political leverage in the oil economy? . Why do you suggest that only "the wealthy" will "heat homes and run cars for free"? . I suppose I might suggest that moves towards green energy by government and to a lesser extent individuals have actually made the country less reliant on supply of fossil fuel from "politically motivated" groups and have if anything provided a slight buffer against potentially even higher prices? . Or that those "better off" individuals are essentially "early adopters", paying the higher price for "new" technology? (Ever bought "the latest" phone, TV, car, etc?) . Isn't "the wealthy" buying the latest "stuff" of any description the ultimate expression of "full blown free market capitalism"? . It's just a thought...

@@rogerstarkey5390 the reason I say only the wealthy will have free energy is because if you can't afford to buy a house you have to rent and likely don't have a parking space or the ability to add solar panels so you're stuck paying silly prices for energy and car fuel. In other words by being wealthy you can live for less.

@@rogerstarkey5390 these changes depend on the ability to do upfront investment. This is always the case with a lot of things, but now their are multiple transitions at the same time people will need to make or possibly suffer higher prices.

Sorry Tugid, Bobby is strictly butter side up!

@@RyanKeane9 😂

I was thinking that - he looked spellbound!

I think QX42B is a lovely name! Then again I am a pleasure gelf so I would say that!

@@RyanKeane9 I'm so happy someone got it! It occurred to me someone might think I was just being mean 😅

@@Mrphilipjcook ahhh no we know you’re lovely really☺️☺️x

Klondike 444, you make a point about roads that I've made many times and continue to mention in various places online including Joe's main channel. Our present road system is based on ancient technology. Sumerians, Romans, Egyptians, all the way to now have basically done roads the same way for thousands of years. They were a good way to get around but they cost an unbelievable amount of dollars and resources to maintain. They are no longer a good way to transport things. In fact they are probably the most expensive budget item in any modern economy. They are so expensive that the US, richest country in the world can't maintain them. Last time a finance increase for roads, bridges and more was passed by Congress it quietly was moved to other projects. Those hundreds of millions of dollars went to states who received those funds and quietly moved them to others' pockets and pet projects. The money the feds took from US taxpayers was stolen from road repair and improvement and used elsewhere to enrich other people. Meanwhile our road system continues to rust and disintegrate. It's not like we aren't aware of better ways to get around. It's that the public is ignorant, politicians are lazy and greedy. In a time where we are working on ecology and climate change problems, road systems are the single largest problem. There are other kinds of road systems that can not only remove the negative ecological impact of roads, but simultaneously solve other problems and move the US in a positive direction. This present system of roads will not handle future demands, not even a little. The longer we wait to build a better method the more it will cost in dollars, health, time and diminishing availability for the necessary materials. Cars literally get broken and worn out on roads because of how we transport ourselves and items. It's not a sane system. We've removed millions of acres of plants that take in the CO2 were trying to reduce. Ancient and modern roads are dumb. We have the ability to replace pavement and concrete and death with roads magnitudes of level better. Unfortunately you're not going to hear the plethora of 'intellectuals' on KZfaq talk about them because there not really intellectuals. These social experts are just pundits, entertaining the masses and plebes. They are not smart, not active and imaginative problem solvers. They will not predict nor hazard their silly reputations on better ideas. They're intellectual only to lessers. They tell us what KZfaq pays them money to tell us.

@@PlanetEarth3141 “there not really intellectuals”😂😂priceless

You use the term "SMR" in the present tense. Give me a link to a *production* unit that's working today? . Maybe that's too much. How about a fully working production prototype? . If such a thing exists, tell me if the company/ country will "donate" the design to the world (Tesla style) thus allowing widespread, rapid production, irrespective of political or ideological differences...... . Tell me if there will be funding assistance from rich nations to help poor regions build reactors. . Predict the reaction of "Petrodollar reliant" countries (you know who) that will have their economic structure destroyed. . And other things.

The epic fail that is Hydrogen is very simple, and basic to elementary physics: It takes more energy to make Hydrogen than you get out of burning it. So, no matter what you do, Hydrogen Is ALWAYS negative. You could have Hydrogen made by solar cells cracking water - it doesn't matter - you will still burn more energy making it than you get from using it. Completely stupid technology.

Autonomy leads to "sustainable public transport" As for "Walkable, cyclable", that's great in a temperate climate, but in cities prone to high heat or high rainfall, it's not always an option for much of the time.

@@rogerstarkey5390 Complete street construction factors in weather & climate conditions - generally called trees 😁 But yes, cities need to consider local conditions for walkability & cycling. I'm a wimp so I prefer to take public transport in bad weather 😀 The Scandanavians don't seem bothered by any "bad" weather & will cycle in any weather - pretty hardy folk! 🤗

Yes, he really could have done one, just one for old times sake

Hi. Robert says in this interview that hydrogen fuel cell cars require a battery, which makes them just as disposable as a Tesla. Also check the schematics of HFCs to see his point.

@@redcar8568 What are you referring to when you say HFC? Fuel cell or hybrid flow controller? I have seen the schematics of a fuel cell and I know it very well. I do not understand how that is relevant. As for battery’s, yes you will need them for fuel cell vehicles. You will not need as many though if you can improve the efficiency of the fuel cell. Therefore, less cost. This is where the time comes in. The main problem with hydrogen is getting it. Hydrolysis is the preferred way to get it but it too is not efficient. As of now refining natural gas is the best way to get hydrogen. This also creates green house gasses so it is not a preferred method of solving the problem of total fossil fuel independence. Robert could absolutely be right with his prediction. I’m not saying he is not. But what I am saying is it is to early in this transformation to make a claim like that.

@Riot "At the end of the day"..... "Cars" are disposable. . "However long it takes the battery to die" is like saying "however long it takes the (ICE) engine to die". It's not stopped anyone using ICE? . "$30,000"? CONGRATULATIONS! You win the "let's hyper-inflate the replacement battery price" sweepstake! (More later) . Numerous things you should consider. 1) The "end of life" (in a vehicle) figure is not the "OMG ITS DEAD!!!" moment. It's somewhere between 60-75% depending on the region of manufacture. . 2) The pack will either:- Go to a "second life" project, 3) Be removed and swapped for an exchange unit, then be *recycled* Or 4) Be recycled with the car at the end of the vehicle life (increasingly likely) . In all of these scenarios the pack is a valuable commodity (much more so than a knackered engine!) . Many packs can be repaired to at least some extent, increasing effective life (kinda reminds me of "an engine"?) . By the time most packs are beyond useful life in the vehicle application, the price of replacement will be a mere fraction of the current cost (which incidentally nowhere near your quoted "30,000".... Unless you buy a Mercedes, but try an engine replace in their ICE cars and you'll pay the same!) . You may have noticed projections of cell cost being 50% or below the current price? Apply that to the more realistic current "manufacturer out of warranty" price of 10-15k? You're down below the engine replacement cost of most cars (with less installation cost!) It IS the solution. ..... You consider hydrogen "an option"? Have you considered "source to use efficiency"? (3+ times the grid energy to move a Hydrogen vehicle the same distance as a direct BEV?..... Show me data to contradict that? Robert implied much more required, I'll look into it!) . Who do you think pays for the energy to produce hydrogen? (Clue, it's the "end user!) . Using your "battery life/ cost" opinion... What's the typical life of a fuel cell? (I think you'll find is closer to 150,000 miles than 500,000.... That'll be a problem then?) . "Ten years technology put into Hydrogen". Ok.... 1) More efficient fuel cells? Possible.... 2) Longer life, cheaper(!) Fuel cells? Don't hold your breath 3) The elephant in the room.... ENERGY. There's no getting around the fact that Hydrogen likes to bond with other elements, or that energy must be used to release those bonds, or that it's a fixed amount of energy for a given amount of gas. That's a big problem, since even if you use "spare, green energy" you essentially throw away a very large percentage when using the "Hydrogen battery" system. (Yes, that's what it is!) Energy in... (Grid) "100 units" Energy out.... (To do work) +)- 25 units. Conventional battery? Energy in 100 units Energy out (work) +/- 80 units. It's not even close. . Plus you need Production infrastructure. Industrial size Storage infrastructure. Transport infrastructure Secondary storage infrastructure (pump") All of which have both have cost and efficiency issues. "You" (the consumer) pay for those as well. . And plenty of other reasons.... All discussed at length.

@@rogerstarkey5390 Sounds like you have it all figured out. Have you put any thought into the electrical grid? All the blackouts that have happened and are forecasted to happen are coming from one thing. With the rising temperatures people are using their air conditioner more often. A standard A/C unit for a 2500 to 3000 sq.ft. Is a 2 ton unit that requires 50 amp at 240vac in America. The peak time of day for an American to use their A/C is between 3-7 in the afternoon. When they get home from work. What I’m getting at is an at home car charger that is installed in the garage of these homes are also 50 amp at 240vac. Can you take a guess when those chargers get used? When the owners get home from work. Take in to account most Americans have two vehicles for every household you can double that. The grid can’t handle it. To compensate for this, more power plants burning fossil fuels, or creating nuclear waist will be built. Electric has just as many hurtles to clear as all the other options. So to make a statement like that is extremely bold.

Listen! Bottom line is, we are headed in the right direction with any option other then fossil fuels. And I applaud everyone who is doing their part. But there is more then one way to skin a cat as they say. If electric cars become the the end all be all solution then I will be the first one in line to buy one. I’ll even buy two of them. But the fact of the matter is, they are not right now. EV’s have issues that need to be fixed just like hydrogen. So to say that no other option will work, or that electric is the only way to go is to bold of a statement for me to agree with.

And combustion engines will always be inefficient! That's the key word for the next century.

Why?

@@henne2k Why? What a weird question. It’s because neither of these men have an charisma or real knowledge about what they’re discussing. Neither can speak with confidence and they both just look like awkward idiots.

Yes, why? Joe looked enthralled.

Lol. It was. But I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Joe's main channel is incredibly successful because, among other things, he took the time and effort into trying different strategies and listening to his subscribers. The whole initial premise was that others would ask him questions and he'd find answers for those viewers. So he is not above considering your feedback, although I still would suggest you consider how rude you're being to him. He's doing a great job and expanding his own horizons with these interviews, and of course there's things to learn and ways to pivot. He still has this great mind in front of you to view as free content, if you don't want to watch or don't appreciate it then tough cause theres others who will. I feel like you could've delivered your message in a much more thoughtful way, especially if you are a fan of his other channel.

@@amber7338 Here's the deal Amber. I know why his main channel is successful as I've been watching it for years. Also, I am not one who beats around the bush or insults for the sake of hate. I give a straight forward, thoughtful opinion on all matters. I neither mince words or make them pretty. Neither am I PC. I owe people the truth as I see and think it and no more. I've complemented Joe often and criticized as much depending on his quality of content. Lastly, he should be able to handle critique and I'm assuming he's up to it, especially when it's accurate or he decides it's not and blows me off, which is fine. I like Joe, but if I didn't respect his efforts I would neither bother critiquing him or compliment him. I'd just simply have ended my subscription shortly after starting it years ago. If Joe likes this show the way it is fine with me but I'll be unsubbing it. I can go watch Fully Charged and skip Joe's interview about weather, accents and whatever follows. I'm glad you like Joe and defended him. I'd do the same if I thought Joe needed it in the face of some moron or hater. 👍

@@PlanetEarth3141 he can definitely handle it and I am not shielding him from your opinion. But no I don't believe being blunt and honest are synonymous with thoughtful or kind if how you deliver it is rude. I agree that feedback is necessary and I am with you in wanting to voice my opinion but something I need to work on, and can see you could work on, is how we say it to others.

I loved this interview. I'm already familiar with him, but even if I wasn't, hearing where the conversation between two intellects naturally flows is endlessly intriguing.

I liked its relaxed approach. Admittedly, I did skip a bit of waffle to get to the juicy parts, but it was a nice bit of banter between two guys who respect each other enormously.