Jump to content

This is actually a serious question


Recommended Posts

^ don't worry ..they won't have to pay for getting it wrong.!

Who here first bought diesels because of the government incentive.?  

Who here tried LPG because that was so much cleaner.?  (I once did but now we have just one LPG filling station (Morrisons) here in Ipswich)..   

I do have a rather ugly looking EV charging point on the side of the cottage I rent, left here by a previous tenant, but I'm told it's of an older generation (suggestion is that it's obsolete).

Still I'm glad some delivery vans are electric rather than noisy diesel engines.  All we need now is the silent equivalent for the driver's blaring radio.!  

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hawk said:

Sigh ... they will realise when it is too late.  

By which time a different party may be in power, who will have to deal with it.  This is the problem when all politician have no idea about reality or understanding of the consequences of their knee-jerk responses to pressure groups. 

 

 

 

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Peter Cobbold said:

Compulsory smart meters cannot be far off. Then rationing when the wind fails in the depths of winter.

Was also involved in this. Was based on a limited study that showed a reduction in energy  use in the short term. But there isn't evidence that shows that it reduces energy use beyond 6 months of install. In fact it shows no change in behaviour. Would have been better to plough the money into further insulation. 

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bfg said:

^ don't worry ..they won't have to pay for getting it wrong.!

Who here first bought diesels because of the government incentive.?  

Who here tried LPG because that was so much cleaner.?  (I once did but now we have just one LPG filling station (Morrisons) here in Ipswich)..   

I do have a rather ugly looking EV charging point on the side of the cottage I rent, left here by a previous tenant, but I'm told it's of an older generation (suggestion is that it's obsolete).

Still I'm glad some delivery vans are electric rather than noisy diesel engines.  All we need now is the silent equivalent for the driver's blaring radio.!  

:rolleyes:

I bought diesels because they were cheaper to run.

I ran LPG (on a few vehicles) because they saved me money.

My wife bought a Hybrid because it will save us money.

The environmental impact had zero impact on my decision (and I still run a V8 and a 2 stroke motorcycle). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hawk said:

I bought diesels because they were cheaper to run.

I ran LPG (on a few vehicles) because they saved me money.

My wife bought a Hybrid because it will save us money.

The environmental impact had zero impact on my decision (and I still run a V8 and a 2 stroke motorcycle). 

The whole diesel/petrol debate centred on where you want your polution. Petrol produces more CO2 but less NOX and particulates, better for locals less good for the globe, Diesel produces less CO2 and more NOX and particulates, better for the globe, less good for the environment. Electric cars produce CO2 from electicity generation. As of 2019 (figures have improved from this generally) the UK produced 21% from low carbon, US 16%, Germany 23% and France 48% from low carbon sources. Makes an electric car more environmentally friendly in France than the US. The good news is that the UK is reducing its reliance on fossil fuel based electricity generation faster than most developed countries (mainly because we have a lot of wind!). Our per capita CO2 production is now almost 50% that of germany for example! 

Complex picture

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Tim D. said:

The whole diesel/petrol debate centred on where you want your pollution. Petrol produces more CO2...... 

CO2 is not a 'pollutant' despite all the loose talk to the contrary.  It is a natural trace gas which which is essential for plant life.  All animals, including us, would die without it because there would be nothing to eat.  Plants thrive with higher CO2 levels but die if the concentration goes below about 150ppm.  

Whether CO2 affects climate is another argument but that still does not make it a pollutant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RobH said:

CO2 is not a 'pollutant' despite all the loose talk to the contrary.  It is a natural trace gas which which is essential for plant life.  All animals, including us, would die without it because there would be nothing to eat.  Plants thrive with higher CO2 levels but die if the concentration goes below about 150ppm.  

Whether CO2 affects climate is another argument but that still does not make it a pollutant.  

Slightly an argument  of semantics. A pollutant is something that pollutes something else. Polluting being a disturbance bought about by the addition of a pollutant. If as the data suggested carbon dioxide is negatively influencing the behavour of the atmosphere this makes it a pollutant. Completely agree that plants can and do live in elevated carbon dioxide (I was responsible for building a £2 million greenhouse a few years back) but this doesn’t make it not a pollutant. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

About 20 years ago I was driving a minibus load of scouts up North for  few days away up a mountain.

TRaveling up the M1 we passed one of the big coal fired electric generating power plants.

I pointed out to the scouts as to what was the white stuff coming out of the bug 'chimneys'

The immediate response was 'pollution'. I replied - "it is steam from the cooling towers. And steam is basically warm water.

If it is pollution then all the natural clouds are pollution !!!!!"

Pollution is a bad word for describing something that should be there - even in inappropriate quantities. 

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobH said:

Unfortunately the real data suggests nothing of the sort Tim and I strongly disagree with your assertion. 

 

Hi Rob H. 

Thanks for this. A good listen and an interesting hypothesis. But data to support it is thin (although if more data appears and supports it I will be all ears). Worth reading around a bit about these fellows. Not all may be as it would seem.

I suspect further discussion on this isn't really in keeping with the TR forum. Very happy to continue to discuss by PM. 

Cheers tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RogerH said:

About 20 years ago I was driving a minibus load of scouts up North for  few days away up a mountain.

TRaveling up the M1 we passed one of the big coal fired electric generating power plants.

I pointed out to the scouts as to what was the white stuff coming out of the bug 'chimneys'

The immediate response was 'pollution'. I replied - "it is steam from the cooling towers. And steam is basically warm water.

If it is pollution then all the natural clouds are pollution !!!!!"

Pollution is a bad word for describing something that should be there - even in inappropriate quantities. 

 

Roger

Hi Roger,

As I said there are a lot of semantics hear. One one hand what you told the scouts was correct to a certain extent  as water vapour is a natural part of the atmosphere  and the amount we pump into the atmosphere is tiny compared to the clouds. If however there were 1000 such chimneys in the same area the vapour would effect the local environment making the area much wetter and humid leading to some adverse effects. Then it would be pollution. Matter if amount and scale of effect.

Cheers

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2021 at 7:37 AM, Tim D. said:

I suspect further discussion on this isn't really in keeping with the TR forum. Very happy to continue to discuss by PM.

Thanks Tim - I agree this fits better in the Pub, an uncomfortable mix of science/quasi-science and politics.  Plus much of it is very UK centric for what is a somewhat international forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, matttnz said:

Thanks Tim - I agree this fits better in the Pub, an uncomfortable mix of science/quasi-science and politics.  Plus much of it is very UK centric for what is a somewhat international forum.

No probs. Strayed into a bit of a minefield

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be proof that Gaia is doing her best to help us to help ourselves.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03805-8

The wildfires in Australia in 2019-20 were catastrophic for several reasons.   Apart from the damage to human lives and living, they released about 715 MILLION tonnes of CO2, more than Germany does in a year, for an example.    But their ash was blown out to sea where it landed in the water and fed massive algal blooms by its iron rich nuitrients.     Those algae absorbed about 80% of that CO2 load back into the sea.     To this may be added the bloom of vegetation on land, especially in Oz where the flora is adapted to a very fire-prone environment.    For instance, eucalyptus  and Banksia species produce seeds that require the heat of a fire on them before they will germinate.

https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/fire-and-the-environment/53-fire-plants-and-vegetation

JOhn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir David King former Chief Sci Advisor is a proponent of  fertilising the ocean with iron salts to allow algal blooms to sequester CO2. However, biology is unpredictable, the effect may wane if iron gets to be recycled within blooms. Maybe as a last-ditch intervention it might be useful. But if it were used as an alternative to reducing fossil fuel use, it looks to me to be an experiment too far. Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Just read this article...

"Volvo says emissions from making EVs can be 70% higher than petrol models - and claims it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become greener

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/electric-car-footprint-exposed-volvo-says-emissions-from-making-evs-can-be-70percent-higher-than-petrol-models-but-once-theyve-done-70000-miles-they-become-greener/ar-AAQjq8y?ocid=mailsignout&li=AAnZ9Ug

It shows that greenhouse gas emissions during production of the electric vehicle are nearly 70 per cent higher than a petrol model, which is mainly due to the carbon intensity of battery and steel production, as well as from the increased share of aluminium in the plug-in car.

Volvo estimated that an electric Volvo C40 needs to be driven around 68,400 miles to have a lower total carbon footprint than its petrol equivalent, if the former is powered by the current global electricity mix."

In our case now we are retired we do far less mileage than we used to - maybe 5000/year. So we would need to drive an electric Volvo C40 for about 14 years before our carbon footprint was less than an equivalent petrol car. Before anyone mentions pollution from the exhaust, then that pollution has been transferred to the manufacturing process instead. Much the same as having our goods manufactured in China using coal fired electricity while we in the UK have become vegan and weave our clothes from flax and huddle round our heat pump in the winter and believe we are saving the planet.

Getting to the truth is not easy and 'greenwashing' is rife.

As for an electric TR - the question is why? A steam train is a steam train. We can look and marvel at the engineering that went into these things. Same with a TR or any other classic car. (Steam car even). If you want an electric sports car then buy one of those. To convert a TR to electric will be a major operation. No longer will you experience the roar of a 6 cylinder engine. Just continue to drive and enjoy them while we still can and before the eco activists block the roads for classic cars.

Keith

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.