The joys of electric car ownership!

[Agent_zed]

I can't help noticing that flinging orange dye around is a great deal easier than studying engineering and actually producing solutions

There are plenty of solutions being produced but it seems everytime one is produced there are a lot of people ready to actively protest against them, seemingly on the basis that they might have to change their lives ever so slightly, egged on by people with a vested interest in making sure you don't change. E.g.

Electric hobs/induction - big oil are actively marketing to keep gas stoves!
Heat pumps - every other story is about how heat pumps will ruin your life in some way
EVs (although I think the concept of big EVs need to change)
Solar panels - I don't even understand the arguement against them as I currently enjoy free elec most days
Wind power - what if the wind doesn't blow they say?! except it provides a 1/4 of our electric already!
Sustainable building with living roofs and passive solar heating - No I want my 1950's style brick 'modern' house?? the same as everyone else on the new estate! N.B. this is not new tech it's been around for arguably hundreds of years, but Wimpey doesn't want to have to think about even placing houses for solar gain in winter and overhangs for cooling in summer when it can just stick up brick boxes that bake in summer because their profits are all that is important.

 

[Sachakins]

The catch is - we burn the imported fuel and increase emissions by far more than any saving via importing.
You can't reduce global fossil fuel use by simply buying it from another country, or even from another planet for that matter!

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-green-energy-for-all-is-the-only-way-forward

You don't burn any more fuel at all.
You make 100,000 barrels, you buy 100,000 barrels less. Net emission change 0.
Transportation emissions local say 100 tons emissions- transportation emissions import say 2100 tons.
Net emissions reduction 2000 tons.

So it does reduce emissions.
The idea is increase countries energy security, reduce imports.

This security gives us time to further green energy development in the UK,

 

[Jacob]

You don't burn any more fuel at all.
You make 100,000 barrels, you buy 100,000 barrels less. Net emission change 0.
....

Net emission change 0?
Globally; only if the oil which would have been imported is left in the ground.
Increasing global production (even in the North Sea) won't stabilise or reduce emissions - it will increase them.

 

[Yojevol]

I do hope your eating vegetarian?!

Have you misspelled you're or should there be an 'is a' between eating and vegetarian?

 

[PhilTilson]

Nonsense.

In 20 years the diesel and petrol engines have hardly changed. Honda introduced the first "Lower Emission" engine in 1975, then another in 1986. 1990 the VTec engines were launched.

The only additions were increasing efficiency from 50+ mpg to close to 100 mpg, and a lot of that was due to the "self stopping" technology when the vehicle was stationary in traffic or lights.

Almost all the innovations in engine technology in the last 20 years have come from LPG, Hybrid or full EV's.

https://csr.honda.com/environment/timeline/
In 20 years we WILL NOT have "community cars" doing 1000km range because battery technology in the last 20 years has had exactly 1 innovation, from Ni-Cad to Lithium which changes the CHEMISTRY but not the SIZE of the battery.

If we had gone from a chunky 12v Ni-Cad to a 36v Lithium that was the size of a box of matches than I might agree with you, but we haven't. The chemistry is limited and always will be.

Samsung had a crack at making smaller Li batteries and look what happened.... umm they exploded.

EV's are still self combusting now.

"The chemistry is limited and always will be."

Wow! And the earth goes round the sun, and the world is flat, and there can't possibly be anything smaller than an atom.

 

[OldGreyDog]

Oh, I thought that he said are you eating vegetarians !

 

[Fergie 307]

One thing we dont seem to hear much about is trying to reduce the emissions from existing fossil fuel power stations etc. Whatever the orange dye brigade may think these are going to be about for a long time yet. I cant believe it is beyond our considerable ingenuity to devise ways of reducing their emissions, which would be a useful contribution whilst we work towards their eventual replacement with greener methods.

 

[Jacob]

One thing we dont seem to hear much about is trying to reduce the emissions from existing fossil fuel power stations etc. Whatever the orange dye brigade may think these are going to be about for a long time yet. I cant believe it is beyond our considerable ingenuity to devise ways of reducing their emissions, which would be a useful contribution whilst we work towards their eventual replacement with greener methods.

They go on about carbon capture but it looks like greenwashing to me; research and money spent on hopeless projects whilst they carry on burning fossil fuels.

 

[Fergie 307]

They go on about carbon capture but it looks like greenwashing to me; research and money spent on hopeless projects whilst they carry on burning fossil fuels.

I tend to agree when it comes to the schemes allegedly drawing it out of the air. I was thinking more along the lines of something akin to the CAT on a car engine, capture at source before it ever gets into the stmosphere.

 

[Agent_zed]

View attachment 163723

Sadly as much as you joke food security is a very real danger that we live with everyday but yet seem to be oblivious to.

Ever heard the 'Society is only 3 meals away from anarchy'?

Climate change may work in more ways than just make it a bit hot in the summer. Increased storms will denude the land, spoil crops, draughts will kill plants. Dry hard ground increases surface run off so more pollution ends up in the rivers causing algal blooms killing all the fish.

People go nuts when they can't get a lettuce for a week due to a bad harvest or logistics problems, I don't even want to know what will happen if there is an actual food shortage. Think about the panic for vaccines across Europe during covid. You think all the countries would want to share their food if there was a global shortage?

Whilst I don't sit rocking back and forth in despair, I do have enough intelligence to understand that we have been incredibly lucky at working out how to harvest more food than we need and be mildly aware how important it is that we can continue doing that. I just hope that we can adapt quickly enough as things change in a much more variable climate and that will become increasingly difficult if we have extremes of weather.

 

[Jacob]

....

Climate change may work in more ways than just make it a bit hot in the summer. Increased storms will denude the land, spoil crops, draughts will kill plants. Dry hard ground increases surface run off so more pollution ends up in the rivers causing algal blooms killing all the fish.

For us the big issue might be break in the food chain - imports obviously, but also continuity of supply from UK itself, not to mention a tedious diet!

People go nuts when they can't get a lettuce for a week due to a bad harvest or logistics problems, I don't even want to know what will happen if there is an actual food shortage.

Small crisis and supermarket shelves empty in days, as we know. Big crisis and they stay empty.

Whilst I don't sit rocking back and forth in despair, I do have enough intelligence to understand that we have been incredibly lucky at working out how to harvest more food than we need and be mildly aware how important it is that we can continue doing that. I just hope that we can adapt quickly enough as things change in a much more variable climate and that will become increasingly difficult if we have extremes of weather.

Yep. No point in despair - we have to see it as a creative project involving the whole of society! Positive thinking here chaps!
Nearest comparison would be WW2, when except for the war itself there were many positives to the way life had to be organised in difficult circumstances.

 

[Sachakins]

Net emission change 0?
Globally; only if the oil which would have been imported is left in the ground.
Increasing global production (even in the North Sea) won't stabilise or reduce emissions - it will increase them.

That's assuming that there will be a market for it! It could result in reduction as there maybe no call for it, given that countries are slowly improving greener energy production and localised production and improving efficiency techniques then that demand will obviate the need for that spare 100,000 barrels.

But the bigger issue is the country less reliant on others for energy, so securing the nation from global impacts, just like food security, we need to build these securities in now, as global changes that cause destabilisation will have less impact.

The country then has the ability to build up a greener localised economy, benefiting at same time as moving us forward in emissions reduction countrywide, not just in ULEZ, benefited by all not just a few.

They can go hand in hand you know. It's not an either or solution we are looking for, it's a collective approach to multifaceted solutions, that collectively and collaborativey will take us towards the solutions you, I and most others want to see happen.

These issues need multiple cohesive approaches to resolve, one way, one idea, one solution is not going to do it.

So let's be less of your solution is better than mine or others, maybe we need to use many solutions for the one problem.

If after all, we put all our eggs in the basket, say just EV's and no other solutions them the same thing that happened to ICE, the stagnation or willingness to innovate through lack of competing methods, will happen to EV's.

Same applies to cleaner environment solutions. Let's say we see Catbon capture as the overarching solution, so dive headlong into that option, in 20 years we realise it causes other catastrophic global issues, we are then even further in the mire.

Just like nuclear power was the panacea to our future energy in the 1950's and now is causing major headaches. Just so one solution, one method, could be that on path that runs into a dead end, with no room to reverse and pick another route!

 

[Ozi]

You misunderstand the graph you selected for your reply.

Looks like you're correct it was a it early is my only excuse but it's much the same shape as the one I was looking for

Nonsense.

In 20 years the diesel and petrol engines have hardly changed. Honda introduced the first "Lower Emission" engine in 1975, then another in 1986. 1990 the VTec engines were launched.

The only additions were increasing efficiency from 50+ mpg to close to 100 mpg, and a lot of that was due to the "self stopping" technology when the vehicle was stationary in traffic or lights.

Almost all the innovations in engine technology in the last 20 years have come from LPG, Hybrid or full EV's.

https://csr.honda.com/environment/timeline/
In 20 years we WILL NOT have "community cars" doing 1000km range because battery technology in the last 20 years has had exactly 1 innovation, from Ni-Cad to Lithium which changes the CHEMISTRY but not the SIZE of the battery.

If we had gone from a chunky 12v Ni-Cad to a 36v Lithium that was the size of a box of matches than I might agree with you, but we haven't. The chemistry is limited and always will be.

Samsung had a crack at making smaller Li batteries and look what happened.... umm they exploded.

EV's are still self combusting now.

Please remember a smaller proportion of EVs catch fire than petrol vehicles (partly because they tend to be newer). The most common cause of vehicle fires by a long way is arson.

Stop start technology became practical as batteries and ignition systems improved

A 1975 lower emission engine would not meet legal requirements today

It's rare that improvements come from one development, materials have improved, machining has improved, not only have mpg figures gone up hugely but what we run on now is nowhere near as energy dense or polluting as good old leaded 4*

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Total environmental impact is a function of population and individual consumption.

I have little doubt that per capita consumption can be reduced in many developed economies with limited impacts, but this is likely offset by those living in relative poverty aspiring to basic standards - eg: refrigeration, clean water, sewage treatment, adequately varied diet etc.

The Jacob argument for the immediate elimination of fossil fuels may be intellectually sound but (IMHO) completely unrealistic. Only an authoritarian regime could try to impose this as the immediate impact on living standards would be wholly unacceptable. It may anyway be unsuccessful.

James Lovelock (Gaia theory) once expressed the view that global population by 2100 may be reduced to 500m from the current 8bn and growing. Sadly he is broadly right - 0.5-2.0bn could with current technologies exist with decent living standards making minimal environmental impacts.

As Frazer opined in Dads Army "we're all doomed". Like any other animal which over exploits its environment, populations grow and then crash as resources are consumed. Wildlife tends to be restricted to particular locations, for homo sapiens the entire globe is their territory.

A personal view - we should do that which can realistically be achieved (net zero by 2050). This must include population control to have any prospect of success and providing the less developed bits of the world with the technology to leapfrog the carbon era.

 

[Jacob]

Total environmental impact is a function of population and individual consumption.

I have little doubt that per capita consumption can be reduced in many developed economies with limited impacts, but this is likely offset by those living in relative poverty aspiring to basic standards - eg: refrigeration, clean water, sewage treatment, adequately varied diet etc.

The Jacob argument for the immediate elimination of fossil fuels may be intellectually sound but (IMHO) completely unrealistic.

Nothing intellectual about it its just a fact. We have no alternative.
Sunak's latest on oil/gas licences is appallingly stupid. He is not very clever. No guarantee that Starmer will say anything clever either but Thangam wossername was vaguely convincing on C4 this evening. They can't have Starmer missing yet another open goal

...... This must include population control to have any prospect of success ......

But its the population of the wealthy sector of the world doing the consuming. Do you think the yanks, ozzis, brits, chinese etc, would take to population control? It's the usual blame game anyway and gets you nowhere.
In any case over-population is natural selection for survival, common throughout the living world at all levels - but species survival, not any particular groups or large numbers, let alone individuals. Where population growth is too successful and destroys its own environment it will then reduce to sustainable levels, if possible. Natural selection doesn't count numbers but will reduce is to a sustainable size of tribe. Could be 100s rather than billions though.

 

[Jameshow]

Nothing intellectual about it its just a fact. We have no alternative.
Sunak's latest on oil/gas licences is appallingly stupid. He is not very clever. No guarantee that Starmer will say anything clever either but Thangam wossername was vaguely convincing on C4 this evening. They can't have Starmer missing yet another open goal

But its the population of the wealthy sector of the world doing the consuming. Do you think the yanks, ozzis, brits, chinese etc, would take to population control? It's the usual blame game anyway and gets you nowhere.
In any case over-population is natural selection for survival, common throughout the living world at all levels - but species survival, not any particular groups or large numbers, let alone individuals. Where population growth is too successful and destroys its own environment it will then reduce to sustainable levels, if possible. Natural selection doesn't count numbers but will reduce is to a sustainable size of tribe. Could be 100s rather than billions though.

I'm amazed at you self confidence Jacob, you must walk down the street thinking everyone is stupid!

 

[Sachakins]

Nothing intellectual about it its just a fact. We have no alternative.
Sunak's latest on oil/gas licences is appallingly stupid. He is not very clever. No guarantee that Starmer will say anything clever either but Thangam wossername was vaguely convincing on C4 this evening. They can't have Starmer missing yet another open goal

But its the population of the wealthy sector of the world doing the consuming. Do you think the yanks, ozzis, brits, chinese etc, would take to population control? It's the usual blame game anyway and gets you nowhere.
In any case over-population is natural selection for survival, common throughout the living world at all levels - but species survival, not any particular groups or large numbers, let alone individuals. Where population growth is too successful and destroys its own environment it will then reduce to sustainable levels, if possible. Natural selection doesn't count numbers but will reduce is to a sustainable size of tribe. Could be 100s rather than billions though.

Wrong again

China is suffering from its historical one child policy, which the dropped decades back. They upped that to two after that.
China has announced that it will now allow couples to have up to three children, after census data showed a steep decline in birth rates. China scrapped its decades-old one-child policy in 2016, replacing it with a two-child limit which has failed to lead to a sustained upsurge in births.31 May 2021.

So yes they accepted population control even now, but up to 3 nowadays.

As for the UK, there's been a change in projected population, revised downwards, as the average life span is shortening, so people in the near are future are expected on average to die earlier. That couple with a declining underlying birth rate will cause natural population decline in the UK. That one reason raising to state pension earlier than planned has been kick into the long.

which you have to admit is a good idea to delay it, it may even get dropped from implementation.

 

[Fergie 307]

I'm amazed at you self confidence Jacob, you must walk down the street thinking everyone is stupid!

As Jacob himself might say, you are getting closer. Of course he is infinitely more intelligent and better informed than everyone else, it's really quite simple if you think about it

 

[Dave Moore]

Silly me! I thought it had a bit to do with demonstrating that a bunch of people had nothing more pressing to do during the working day and had fun causing disruption.Those actually studying to provide solutions would have been inconvenienced too and we might perhaps skip past the deaths caused by the delay to ambulances when the Dartford bridge was closed and tailbacks ensued.It might have been more useful if they had put their bicycles on stands and connected the dynamos to the national grid.

I don’t think they go to protests on bicycles, that would not show hypocrisy.

 

[Jacob]

Wrong again

China is suffering from its historical one child policy, which the dropped decades back. They upped that to two after that.
China has announced that it will now allow couples to have up to three children, after census data showed a steep decline in birth rates. China scrapped its decades-old one-child policy in 2016, replacing it with a two-child limit which has failed to lead to a sustained upsurge in births.31 May 2021.

So yes they accepted population control even now, but up to 3 nowadays.

As for the UK, there's been a change in projected population, revised downwards, as the average life span is shortening, so people in the near are future are expected on average to die earlier. That couple with a declining underlying birth rate will cause natural population decline in the UK. That one reason raising to state pension earlier than planned has been kick into the long.

which you have to admit is a good idea to delay it, it may even get dropped from implementation.

On the face of it the one child policy worked if they now have declining population?