I was not proposing that electric vehicles should be permitted to park in places currently prohibited. The regulations are indeed existing for a reason, even if widely flouted.
What I suggest is that of the currently permitted parking places, that those nearest the school gates be reserved for electric vehicles. No increase in spaces, but reserving the most favoured spots for EVs.

The spikes sound entertaining, but might not prove entirely practical.

I expect car use and numbers of cars to halve in certain areas that are well provided with public transport and in which parking is hugely costly.
Supermarket home delivery services will reduce the number of older drivers, a lot of whom drive primarily for shopping. Whilst todays generation of older drivers might be a bit reluctant to use on line ordering, many middle aged people already use this service will probably continue as they get older.
But nationally I agree that a halving is unlikely.

Broadgage has a most cynical proposal to increase the use of electric cars. Many parents are utterly desperate to park as close as possible to the school gates, sometimes resorting to punch ups to achieve this. And many such parents know that the highway code does not apply to the school run. (zig zag road markings mean "school set down and pick up zone")

I would therefore reserve those parking places nearest to the school for electric cars only. Show what a good parent you are by parking 10 meters closer.

Two reasons, HST power cars are available now and at modest cost. Something new might take years to design, and then fail to meet expectations regarding reliability.

My views may be summarised as,
"The need for speed" Faster is in my view better, though by no means the only consideration.
Whilst 5 day a week commuting MIGHT decline I suspect that most passengers consider how long each journey takes, rather than the time taken per week. Or put another way, 2 return trips a week does NOT for most passengers excuse a longer journey time.
Shorter journey times for local trains will help to make train more competitive with driving.
Faster long distance trains will help make trains more competitive with flying.
There is little point in spending millions to save a couple of minutes journey time, if buying a ticket takes 20 minutes.

Comfort and facilities are also important. As a personal example, when living in London I regularly choose an approx. 70 minute bus journey versus a 35 minute train journey. I always got a seat on the bus, and almost never got a seat on the new shorter trains (4 car and 6 car networkers replaced 8 car slam door units)

For longer rail journeys, comfort and facilities are more important. It is not just me whom considers new trains to be a backward step in these respects.

I agree that travel to business meetings is likely to decline permanently.

I expect an increase in domestic holiday and leisure travel. There is a move away from air travel for at least two reasons. Firstly some are minimising air travel due to environmental concerns. Others are avoiding it due to the "hassle factor" of prolonged check in and security procedures, lost luggage and in general not customer friendly.

Use of HST^▸ (High Speed Train) power cars on the sleeper might be worth considering, despite the need for electrical modifications.
They are readily available and should be cheap if otherwise due to be scrapped.
Commonality with the castle sets for ease of maintenance.
Not perhaps a long term solution due to the age of HSTs, but a quick alternative to the unreliable locomotives used at present.

Presumably the sleeper could proceed at reduced performance on one power car in case of a failure ? Better than blocking the line.

It MIGHT even be possible to uprate the power output of the power cars. The MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) engines are capable of higher power output than the Valentas. One limiting factor is the rectifier. Rectifiers are now much much smaller and cheaper than in years gone by.
Another limiting factor is the traction motor ratings, but hotel power does not add to the loading of the traction motors.

Helium filled airships would be safe from explosion, but seem unlikely to see large scale use due to limitations on helium supply. Hydrogen is too flammable for manned craft, as the Hindenburg accident showed.

I do not believe that electric aircraft will EVER be possible for long distances such as trans Atlantic.
Flying needs a lot of energy, and even the best batteries have an energy density very much lower than oil derived fuels.

Electric aircraft are a distinct possibility for "short hops" such as to islands not far from the mainland. At least one has already flown. The consequences of mechanical failure could be fatal, but no more of a risk than for fossil fuel aircraft.
A large battery powered airliner able to cross the Channel with dozens or hundreds of passengers should be possible, but is there any point ? Rail is probably preferable.

Battery/solar powered airships are a possibility, but are much slower than jet aircraft. I do not expect large scale use of airships because the helium with which they are filled is in limited supply.

Flywheels cant store enough energy to compensate for calm weather and limited power availability.
They are however very helpful by adding inertia and thereby promoting stability, I expect more schemes similar to the one in the above link.

Yes, could not have put it better myself.
But in fact the position is worse than suggested above, generation connected via static inverters, and imports also connected via static inverters do suffer from lack of inertia as described above.

Also, an increasing percentage of the electrical load these days consists of switched mode power supplies*. These often work correctly down to 85 or 90 volts.
Suppose that some transient fault or failure briefly reduces the nominal 230 volt supply to 115 volts. Back in the old days, most loads would use less current at this temporarily reduced voltage, this helped the system to recover from the fault.
These days, the load current will roughly double at the reduced voltage, this increased current will tend to further reduce the voltage, and in extreme cases might lead to a total failure.
During the 1970s power shortages, as well as rota power cuts, voltage reductions were imposed to reduce the load. This works less well today as all those switched mode* power supplies will draw constant watts at the reduced voltage.

*electronic lighting ballasts, electric vehicle chargers, most consumer electronics, variable speed motor drives, and modern electric trains/trams, are all examples of switched mode power supplies.

I would not describe myself as "being passionate about the environment" Concerned, yes and I try to practice what I preach by not flying, not driving, minimising use of  taxis, (unless electric) and so on.

Extinction Rebellion could be described as passionate about the environment, they are calling for "net zero carbon emissions by 2025" which in effect means the end of aviation by that date.
The more extreme supporters of XR^▸ (Crossrail) are calling for a variety of illegal tactics to shut down airports.

All that I called for was not to bail out or otherwise give public money to airlines, airports or builders of aircraft. I consider such views to be moderate.

Such interconnectors give most useful flexibility in case of breakdowns or other out of course events.
They also increase the opportunity to use renewable energy, it is always windy somewhere in Europe.
 Adding Norwegian hydroelectric power to the European energy market is particularly helpful. Norway can export hydropower to us during calm weather, and we can export UK^▸ (United Kingdom) wind power to Norway in windy conditions, thereby reducing the demand for hydropower and leaving more water in dams for future use.

My only reservation is that more interconnectors might become an excuse for not ensuring adequate UK generating capacity. We should in my view aim to export electricity on at least a similar scale to that which we import.
Interconnectors can break, and other nations might suffer shortages that limit exports to the UK.

Electricity demand in the UK has fallen in recent years due to energy saving regulations (most of which were bitterly opposed).

I expect demand to increase in the future for several reasons.
1) A growing population.
2) Increased use of electric transport.
3) A move towards electric heating, particularly in privately rented homes.
4) Mains operated smoke detectors in most new properties, only 1 watt each, but a not quite negligible extra demand of  perhaps 50 million watts in total (10 million homes, 5 smoke detectors in each, 50 million 1 watt loads) 50 Mw is about an extra 0.1% on the peak demand.
5) Future requirements to fit emergency lighting to homes, initially only for vulnerable groups, (1 million homes, 20 watts in each of these homes, another 20 Mw.
6) A warming climate increasing the demand for air conditioning, and also increasing the energy used by existing refrigeration equipment.

And whilst energy saving is commendable, it wont carry on reducing demand indefinitely. Much of the "low hanging fruit" has already been plucked.
Take lighting as an example. Replacing a 60 watt incandescent lamp with a 12 watt CFL saves 48 watts. Replacing the 12 watt CFL with a 6 watt LED saves a useful but rather less impressive 6 watts. Replacing the 6 watt LED with a 3 watt LED (not yet available in the UK) Saves a paltry 3 watts, better than not saving 3 watts but hardly dramatic.
And NO lamp with a light equal to a 60 watt incandescent can EVER use less than about 2 watts, and I suspect that 3 watts might be as good as it will get.

The loss of aviation related jobs is very sad, and I feel sorry for those thrown out of work.
That however does NOT mean that I support bail outs or subsidies for airlines and related businesses.

I would likewise not support government subsidies to protect the jobs of coal miners. And looking back further, I would not have subsidised the manufacture and operation of horse drawn vehicles, when demand for same was badly hit by the new fangled horseless carriage.
Or the manufacture of gas lighting equipment when faced with "unfair" competition from the new electric lights. Should electric lighting have been restricted to save jobs in the gas lighting industry ?

And what about the huge numbers of workers in the post coach industry thrown out of work by the railways ?

Airlines are in my view a dying industry, due to a combination of factors.
1) Environmental concerns. Burning TONS of fuel for a pleasure or business trip is increasingly regarded as unacceptable..
2) Opposition to airport expansion due to noise nuisance.
3) And soon to return, fuel costs. Airlines are struggling despite the present very low price of fuel. What happens when it goes up ?

Even I do not expect the near term end of aviation, but I do believe that it has reached a peak and is now declining. I don't believe that public money should be spent on supporting it (except on a VERY small scale in exceptional cases, such as when it is the only reasonable access to remote islands)

Sensible in my view. Wind power is now an established technology that is already meeting a significant proportion of our electricity demand, with expansion already planned. Offshore wind also has an indirect environmental gain as most ships are banned from wind farms which have therefore become "accidental" marine life preserves.
Wave power is still experimental.
Solar power is also an established technology, already meeting a significant proportion of our daytime load.
Tidal power is not yet used on a significant scale, but in my view should be used. The building of large dams or barriers is a well understood technology that is already used to facilitate navigation, to control flooding, and to generate hydroelectric power. Water turbines are also a mature technology.

Nuclear power undoubtedly works but is exceedingly expensive and plagued by delays. I doubt that Hinkley C will ever open.

I disagree, I considered my remarks carefully and stand by them. I have sufficient knowledge to state the following facts about the airline industry.
1) Almost entirely entirely fossil fuel powered.
2) Carbon emissions per mile, per passenger, broadly similar to driving*
3) Often involves significant extra carbon emissions in driving to the airport, unlike rail transport for which most people are nearer the station than the airport.

I also confirm my statement that oil prices are very low at about $45. This is helpful to the airlines in view of the vast amounts consumed, with fuel being a major overhead.
When oil returns to about $90, there will be further contractions and more calls for bungs, subsidies and bailouts.

*No great accuracy may be claimed in this statement since both cars and aircraft vary a lot in fuel consumption and load factor. The problem is not just the fuel used per mile, but that the speed of air transport encourages longer and more numerous journeys. Few people would drive thousands of miles each way for a holiday, but flying a similar distance is common.

A significant proportion of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) grid electricity is from renewables. Wind power is the largest renewable input, followed by solar, and with a small contribution from hydropower.
This proportion is increasing as more wind turbines and solar panels are installed.
Nuclear power is a small and declining share of UK electricity supply.
Wave and tidal power show some promise but are insignificant at present.
Coal burning for power generation has declined substantially, for some months no coal was burnt. Coal burning has returned for the colder weather, but is now a small and declining source.

Rubber pollution from tyres is not IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) a significant problem, it is a natural material  and once divided into fine powder soon breaks down. Plastic pollution is a greater problem since plastic micro particles end up in the sea where plankton eat them, and they build up in larger sea creatures that eat plankton.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ UK grid data. 25% from renewables at present, and 23% from nuclear. During the day, renewable input  increases as solar is available as well as wind.
Nuclear power declines in percentage terms during the day as demand increases.

Hunterston nuclear power station is due to close by the beginning of 2022, having already been "life extended" far beyond the original design life. There must be doubts about the continued operation of other nuclear stations of the same design and similar age. One limiting factor is the cracking of the graphite core.