UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Big Tea]

Would you believe the British press are now thumping on about a 'Co2 shortage'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44613652

[Andres125sx]

One could also apply a version of Pascal's Wager to "climate change".
1. If it exists, and we do something about it, we win.
2. If it exists, and we don't do anything about it, then we lose.
3. If it doesn't exist, and we don't do anything about it then we lose nothing (a win, in effect).
4. If it doesn't exist, and we do something that we think will "help" then we lose nothing (again, a win).

Best then to avoid 2 and do what we can. At worst we are no worse off than now, at best, we save ourselves a lot of insurmountable problems down the line.

Of course, some people will say "I want my big inefficient car, and my inefficient house etc., so please go away sexually". Others will say, doing somethinjg doesn't hurt me so I'll tag along. Others will want to do something because it's trendy. Yet others because it's the right thing to do.

I don't have children, neither does my sister. My genetic line dies with me so I don't, effectively, give a stuff what happens to the planet in, say 50 years. On that basis, I can burn every drop of oil, burn every lump of coal, fell every rainforest tree. What do I care?

Except that if we do something about it, we also lose. We spend tons of money to ditch stuff that supposedly enhances global warming to replace it with stuff that doesn't. Like having to buy a more modern, maybe even an electric car because burning fuel causes global warming, and that's on an individual scale. Just look at how VW almost went bankrupt simply because their cars were not as 'clean' as advertised, look at the amount being invested in research and development of cleaner energy sources.

Mankind is investing a countless amount of money because of global warming, and if it turns out to be bullshit, all that money will have gone to waste.

EV's are recharged by what? More fossil fuels.

Not to mention the catastrophic effects of lithium mining. Great for the environment...

You know burning fossil fuels is just one and the oldest way to produce electricity, but there are some others like solar, wind or hydropower plants, don´t you?

[jjn9128]

I agree with the principle of wind and solar, and they should be pursued to the (reasonable) maximum.
However, in UK at least it has passed into politics and people making money from government grants for instillation and the government being able to point to figure which are completely disconnected from reality seem to have become more important than the actual reason for it.

Also, no one seems to factor in the resource cost of building installing and maintaining, then disposing of all this new tec. or having to have a stand by for when it is dark with on wind.

While I am fully for it, it has taken on a headline life of its own rather than being an included element in the national grid.

Politicians, business profit and headline grabbers have hijacked what should have been handled by expert planners.
And I mean experts, not of the sort we usually get trotted out to tell us how good the government and the pressure groups are doing.

Edit,
As an incidental to this, from my upstairs windows I can see 3 25mw wind farms and several small installations, and know that out of sight that area are 3 medium size solar farms.

I have no problem with seeing them and find them far preferable to what I saw through my window when I was a kid, which was plumes of smoke everywhere.

As I pointed out, new wind is/will be subsidy free. Because the turbines are getting bigger the cost of maintenance per MWh is getting cheaper so costs are coming down, unlike all other sources of power. We had a wind farm in the Bristol channel near me turned down for planning because of aesthetics, yet they same people are happy for thousands of static caravans to litter the countryside. Really gets my hackles up.

The national grid is another outdated and decrepit system which urgently wants replacing/restructuring. Batteries are one way to go - either local level or at personal level with things like the Tesla powerwall (Ikea have their own version) or even electric cars can be used to store energy for the home. Rather than what we do now which is ramp up production for when demand is high, e.g. the ad break in Coronation street when 10-15 million kettles go on at once, with batteries you constantly trickle charge so the draw on the grid is never as high so production is more efficient. Solar and wind peak at different points so there's no worry about that.

As things stand in 5-10 years our coal fire power stations (which are already ~10 years past end of life) are going to conk out - we need something for when that happens otherwise the 5th biggest economy (in 5-10 years post-Breakfast maybe that's lower) on the planet will be having rolling blackouts.

But this is all off the topic of electric cars - it just annoys me when people tote out the old "they still require fossil fuels" b******s.

[jjn9128]

Would you believe the British press are now thumping on about a 'Co2 shortage'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44613652

Tin hat time -- that's because not enough people are buying beer or coke, so they're using it as a means to limit supply and hike up the prices don't tell big CO2 we're on to them

[Tommy Cookers]

'wind and solar account for 30% of the energy on our national grid'

wind and solar account for 30% of the electrical energy on our national electrical energy grid
and our total electrical energy is far smaller than our total heat-fuel energy (mainly heating buildings and for production)

and every EV increases demand for fuel-driven generation of electrical energy


yes the greenhouse effect was 'invented' in 1896
but the 'expert' consensus' until recently thought global cooling was the actual or likely result of mans industrial activity
this was being presented in new schoolbooks in the late 1960s
the Heinrich events discovery strengthened this doctrine

[Andres125sx]

One could also apply a version of Pascal's Wager to "climate change".
1. If it exists, and we do something about it, we win.
2. If it exists, and we don't do anything about it, then we lose.
3. If it doesn't exist, and we don't do anything about it then we lose nothing (a win, in effect).
4. If it doesn't exist, and we do something that we think will "help" then we lose nothing (again, a win).

Best then to avoid 2 and do what we can. At worst we are no worse off than now, at best, we save ourselves a lot of insurmountable problems down the line.

Of course, some people will say "I want my big inefficient car, and my inefficient house etc., so please go away sexually". Others will say, doing somethinjg doesn't hurt me so I'll tag along. Others will want to do something because it's trendy. Yet others because it's the right thing to do.

I don't have children, neither does my sister. My genetic line dies with me so I don't, effectively, give a stuff what happens to the planet in, say 50 years. On that basis, I can burn every drop of oil, burn every lump of coal, fell every rainforest tree. What do I care?

Except that if we do something about it, we also lose. We spend tons of money to ditch stuff that supposedly enhances global warming to replace it with stuff that doesn't. Like having to buy a more modern, maybe even an electric car because burning fuel causes global warming, and that's on an individual scale. Just look at how VW almost went bankrupt simply because their cars were not as 'clean' as advertised, look at the amount being invested in research and development of cleaner energy sources.

Mankind is investing a countless amount of money because of global warming, and if it turns out to be bullshit, all that money will have gone to waste.

Very true, if that´s the case we´d be wasting huge amounts of money.


But now think about the other possibility. Imagine if it´s true and we´re ruining the planet with our huge emissions, our unconceivable deforestation rates, and our greedy "all must be based on economics, profit is everything" mentality...

We´d be ignoring our planet balance is being ruined and we´d be condemning ourself to extintion.


Now evaluate yourself what should be our response to both scenarios, would it be worse to waste huge amounts of money without necessity, or would it be worse to break the natural balance of the planet and condemn ourselves and the whole planet to extintion?

[bjpower]

The big problem with renewable energy is you cannot depend on it. It may not be windy / sunny etc

[Just_a_fan]

The big problem with renewable energy is you cannot depend on it. It may not be windy / sunny etc

But we will always have tides* and we can predict them to the minute many months in advance.


* So long as the Moon is orbiting us. The tides will reduce over time but it will be insignificant in any human-meaningful time scale.

[Just_a_fan]

I'm surprised people are surprised by climate change. Climate stasis would be truly anomalous in my opinion.

I don't think anyone, even Trump, would deny that climate change exists.

But he did!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donal ... ming-hoax/


Some people perfectly represented by Trump, have been denying climate change for decades. Once they´ve been told that´s not debatable, they switched to ok ok it´s real, but it´s not our fault

Anything to ignore our responsability and continue prioritizing economics over anything else

No, he said global warming is a hoax. Subtle but different thing.

[Zynerji]

EV's are recharged by what? More fossil fuels.

Not to mention the catastrophic effects of lithium mining. Great for the environment...

Wind and solar currently account for ~30% of the energy on the national grid in the UK. New wind farms are government subsidy free and are selling energy at ever lower prices (£45/MWh and continuing to get cheaper as turbines get more efficient and require less maintenance per MWh produced) - unlike Hinkley C which is costing the UK taxpayer billions in subsidies, as well as selling electricity way over current wholesale (£93/MWh) with all the money going to the French and Chinese. Energy companies are investing in wind because they can make money back. I don't know how other countries are doing but the UK as an island has more than enough potential off shore to make most of out electricity from wind farms, if we can sort out tidal we'd be close to 100% from renewable.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 81656.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... h-analysts

The UK is very small compared to US, Russia and China. 30% of a tiny nation isn't impressive.

[Zynerji]

Except that if we do something about it, we also lose. We spend tons of money to ditch stuff that supposedly enhances global warming to replace it with stuff that doesn't. Like having to buy a more modern, maybe even an electric car because burning fuel causes global warming, and that's on an individual scale. Just look at how VW almost went bankrupt simply because their cars were not as 'clean' as advertised, look at the amount being invested in research and development of cleaner energy sources.

Mankind is investing a countless amount of money because of global warming, and if it turns out to be bullshit, all that money will have gone to waste.

EV's are recharged by what? More fossil fuels.

Not to mention the catastrophic effects of lithium mining. Great for the environment...

You know burning fossil fuels is just one and the oldest way to produce electricity, but there are some others like solar, wind or hydropower plants, don´t you?

I do. I also understand that those aren't helping much. New nuclear, even LFTR would be better.

[Zynerji]

Please see: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... g-advanced

No. No math here. Just more punditry.

It's exactly the same process that is causing the Moon to slowly move away from the Earth.

Let's turn it around - you claimed the Earth is getting closer to the Sun by "falling down the gravity well". Care to share the mathematics of that with us?

Why should I? I started as the skeptic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_well

A gravity well or gravitational well is a conceptual model of the gravitational field surrounding a body in space – the more massive the body, the deeper and more extensive the gravity well associated with it. The Sun is very massive, relative to other bodies in the Solar System, so the corresponding gravity well that surrounds it appears "deep" and far-reaching. The gravity wells of asteroids and small moons, conversely, are often depicted as very shallow. Anything on the surface of a planet or moon is considered to be at the bottom of that celestial body's gravity well, and so escaping the effects of gravity from such a planet or moon (to enter outer space) is sometimes called "climbing out of the gravity well". The deeper a gravity well is, the more energy any space-bound "climber" must use to escape it.

You are the one claiming that Earths orbit is powerful enough to escape the deepest gravitational well in our Galaxy, without adding more energy to the system. Like water flowing up a drain.

That just sounds awful coming from engineering types...

[Just_a_fan]

Go look up tidal acceleration of planets etc. The tidal effect between the Sun and Earth results in a reduction of the Earth's spinning angular momentum and a transfer of that energy to the planet's orbital angular momentum. An increase in orbital angular momentum means the planet "speeds up" and so occupies an increasingly distant orbit. The effect is ridiculously slow, of course, hence why we are moving away from the Sun at about 3m in half a million years.

Suffice to say, the Earth is not "falling down the Sun's gravity well".

[Zynerji]

Go look up tidal acceleration of planets etc. The tidal effect between the Sun and Earth results in a reduction of the Earth's spinning angular momentum and a transfer of that energy to the planet's orbital angular momentum. An increase in orbital angular momentum means the planet "speeds up" and so occupies an increasingly distant orbit. The effect is ridiculously slow, of course, hence why we are moving away from the Sun at about 3m in half a million years.

Suffice to say, the Earth is not "falling down the Sun's gravity well".

Sounds like magic. Just like the rest of climate change.

BTW: what happens when the earth runs out of "spinning angular momentum" from this tidal process? That right, it falls down the drain. Unless a second magic spell is cast to suspend conservation of energy laws...

[henry]

No. No math here. Just more punditry.

It's exactly the same process that is causing the Moon to slowly move away from the Earth.

Let's turn it around - you claimed the Earth is getting closer to the Sun by "falling down the gravity well". Care to share the mathematics of that with us?

Why should I? I started as the skeptic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_well

A gravity well or gravitational well is a conceptual model of the gravitational field surrounding a body in space – the more massive the body, the deeper and more extensive the gravity well associated with it. The Sun is very massive, relative to other bodies in the Solar System, so the corresponding gravity well that surrounds it appears "deep" and far-reaching. The gravity wells of asteroids and small moons, conversely, are often depicted as very shallow. Anything on the surface of a planet or moon is considered to be at the bottom of that celestial body's gravity well, and so escaping the effects of gravity from such a planet or moon (to enter outer space) is sometimes called "climbing out of the gravity well". The deeper a gravity well is, the more energy any space-bound "climber" must use to escape it.

You are the one claiming that Earths orbit is powerful enough to escape the deepest gravitational well in our Galaxy, without adding more energy to the system. Like water flowing up a drain.

That just sounds awful coming from engineering types...

Just for accuracy our Sun is a long way from being the most massive object in our galaxy.

And as a matter of interest how much closer to the sun will the earth be 50 years from now?

And you really do need to read some stuff on Solar tide effect which actually adds angular momentum to the earth , albeit relatively small. This rather gainsays your plumbing analogy.