UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[rgava]

Thats why, following the Paris Climate Agreement, many countries announced that they are moving away from coal and other polluting energy. We expect to have a complete new and Co2 free infrastructure at 2050 in Europe.

I hope this statement can be achieved, but I highly doubt it.

If you take a look at this info from Eurostat: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... 4-2016.png you will see from 2004 to 2016 roughly 8% increase on the total share of renewable sources in 12 years.

Even thinking from now to 2050 (30+ years), in the context of an shrinking economy, I don't see EU countries having economical resources to invest in such extent to reach that target.

Don't get me wrong I believe we must do something to reduce as much as possible our impact on the planet by reducing, first of all, greenhouse gasses emissions. But I believe much more in a multi-side approach, challenging IC industry to get as carbon neutral as possible, EV industry to improve as much as possible battery technology and fuel cell technology to make it much more affordable.

First thing to solve a problem is to be realistic, and forbid one technology which still have potential for much more improvement IMHO is not the way to go.

You know, for example, that there are carbon neutral synthetic fuels already available?
Of course, they are right now much more expensive than Oil based fuels (same as the batteries for the EV). But this is one of the possible multilateral technical approach needed to cope with the challenge we face as humanity.

[Andres125sx]

Again, you don't read any articles how we have to find different ways of heating and cooking at home, and no study by the WHO which says how cooking with gas kills millions of people every year because it doesn't fit the narrative of demonizing hydrocarbon-fueled cars.

Electrics are substituting gas also in this field, and did you hear about extractors?

So yea ... scientists may be after the truth, but none of them will work for free and if your employer or client asks you to write a report on a topic you can make assumptions and choose parameters in a way that will reinforce what you went out prove (confirmation bias)

So you are suggesting if a scientist get paid for his job his reports will be biased?

Sorry but I have to disagree, as always, some will but most won't, that's the importance of general consensus

Also, how many scientifics do you know working for free?
Does that mean their job is always biased as you suggest in this case?

[Jolle]

Thats why, following the Paris Climate Agreement, many countries announced that they are moving away from coal and other polluting energy. We expect to have a complete new and Co2 free infrastructure at 2050 in Europe.

I hope this statement can be achieved, but I highly doubt it.

If you take a look at this info from Eurostat: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... 4-2016.png you will see from 2004 to 2016 roughly 8% increase on the total share of renewable sources in 12 years.

Even thinking from now to 2050 (30+ years), in the context of an shrinking economy, I don't see EU countries having economical resources to invest in such extent to reach that target.

Don't get me wrong I believe we must do something to reduce as much as possible our impact on the planet by reducing, first of all, greenhouse gasses emissions. But I believe much more in a multi-side approach, challenging IC industry to get as carbon neutral as possible, EV industry to improve as much as possible battery technology and fuel cell technology to make it much more affordable.

First thing to solve a problem is to be realistic, and forbid one technology which still have potential for much more improvement IMHO is not the way to go.

You know, for example, that there are carbon neutral synthetic fuels already available?
Of course, they are right now much more expensive than Oil based fuels (same as the batteries for the EV). But this is one of the possible multilateral technical approach needed to cope with the challenge we face as humanity.

It won’t be easy of course, especially with growing opposition from nationalistic parties who try to undermine investments in these kinds of infrastructure. But as an example, in the Netherlands, new housing projects are already build for years without gas and if possible are connected to city heating. The town where I live, with a historical city center, they are installing city heating as we speak. The Dutch railway system (99% electrical powered) has switched to 100% clean energy.

[Andres125sx]

I´m sure there´s some common expresion for that attitude, trying to moke someone or some field because they once made a mistake, even assuming they should be sheers or their decades of work in the subject are useless , but my english is not good enough

Don't blame the messenger.

Less common: Tu quoque. A Latin phrase (you also or what of you?) used to name the fallacy of diverting the attention of a debate from ideas to speakers, by highlighting hypocrisy or ideological inconsistency.

Generally these can be considered ad hominem. Attempts to discredit ideas by assaulting the character of those who speak them, without addressing the content of the idea.

Great, thank you

[Andres125sx]

As i mentioned in my previous post, with the current energy mix in Germany and a typical consumption of an electric car including power losses on charging you end up with CO2 emissions which are above the current EU goal for 2021, but on paper those cars are emission free... lol

May you share the calculations? Because Germany don't have 100% of their power plants burning carbon which would be the only way this statement may be close to real...


Edit, sorry you meant to comply with 2021 rules... I guess assuming all cars are EVs right? That's not s real assumption

Andres,

In this post you can take a look and an article from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, written by Professor Thomas Koch (Karlsruher Institut für Technologie) were he states than using the current energy generation mix in Germany, one EV emits more CO2 than an Euro6 diesel viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27180&p=787901#p787901

Sorry but I can't read German and I've read too many too biased reports at the respect to rely on that specific opinion...

Did he consider oil extraction, refinement and transport? Because I'm sure he did include energy production for the EV, but my bet is he didn't include it with the diesel... Which would mean he's comparing apples to oranges

What about NOx?
What about cancerous particles?

The exhaust of any ICE emit a lot more than just CO2, but for some sectors it's very convenient to ignore this and focus only on CO2.

What diesel engine btw? I hope it's not from Audi-Volkswagen and their false claims about their cars emissions

[Andres125sx]

btw - at risk of Andres downvoting me again ....

Stop your paranoia Tommy, we usually agree in this debate, even when you assume what UK do is what the whole world do too frequently

[Andres125sx]

It won’t be easy of course, especially with growing opposition from nationalistic parties who try to undermine investments in these kinds of infrastructure. But as an example, in the Netherlands, new housing projects are already build for years without gas and if possible are connected to city heating. The town where I live, with a historical city center, they are installing city heating as we speak. The Dutch railway system (99% electrical powered) has switched to 100% clean energy.

What do you mean with the part I bolded? Some sort of central heating? How does that work?

[Jolle]

It won’t be easy of course, especially with growing opposition from nationalistic parties who try to undermine investments in these kinds of infrastructure. But as an example, in the Netherlands, new housing projects are already build for years without gas and if possible are connected to city heating. The town where I live, with a historical city center, they are installing city heating as we speak. The Dutch railway system (99% electrical powered) has switched to 100% clean energy.

What do you mean with the part I bolded? Some sort of central heating? How does that work?

Hot water in insulated pipes going from house to house as a central city heating, ready (or already is) connected to sources of heat like industrial estates, data centers or power plants (for now). Every house has a heat exchanger to provide hot water and heating. The whole cities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam is heated this way for instance.

[rgava]

Sorry but I can't read German and I've read too many too biased reports at the respect to rely on that specific opinion...

Did he consider oil extraction, refinement and transport? Because I'm sure he did include energy production for the EV, but my bet is he didn't include it with the diesel... Which would mean he's comparing apples to oranges

What about NOx?
What about cancerous particles?

The exhaust of any ICE emit a lot more than just CO2, but for some sectors it's very convenient to ignore this and focus only on CO2.

What diesel engine btw? I hope it's not from Audi-Volkswagen and their false claims about their cars emissions

Because it is German is biased?

"Today’s EU refineries consume the equivalent of 6.5 to 7% of the energy content of their feedstocks" (source: https://www.concawe.eu/wp-content/uploa ... 8-01-e.pdf)
So, we can conclude a 6% more CO2 emissions for the diesel in terms of its refining. And my common sense tell me extraction and transport will not take more than another 5%.

Regarding NOx and particles, I know this will sound cynical, but CO2 is killing the planet while NOx and particles can be reducing the life expectancy of certain part of the population.
Besides this, how much particles do you think our ancestors were breathing with wood burning for heating and cooking in the past?
And, if you read some articles about NOx effects on Health and Environment you will find it is not so clearly harmful.

The debate in this thread has been recently focusing on the Scientific approach.

What I'm telling is human kind should do their best in all possible ways and, regarding transport, this means develop further technologies to reduce as much as possible the emissions of IC engines as well as increase as much as possible the share of green electric energy generation and electrification of transport, all at the same time and with the same effort.

You know that a well calibrated Ad-Blue system can reduce NOx in real driving well below current Euro6 test requirements?
It's just a question of get used to not only refuel your car, but also refill the Urea solution deposit.

[Andres125sx]

That's interesting, thanks

[Big Tea]

The only way 'we' will ever hit our targets is to go nuclear, and move from one set of protesters to another.

[Jolle]

The only way 'we' will ever hit our targets is to go nuclear, and move from one set of protesters to another.

At the moment the amount of energy from renewable and nuclear is about the same, still trailing behind fossil fuel. I don't see why investing in nuclear would be easier then investing in hydro, thermal, wind and solar power.

[Big Tea]

The only way 'we' will ever hit our targets is to go nuclear, and move from one set of protesters to another.

At the moment the amount of energy from renewable and nuclear is about the same, still trailing behind fossil fuel. I don't see why investing in nuclear would be easier then investing in hydro, thermal, wind and solar power.

Mostly because it runs 24/7, which would be with tidal (well 20/7 anyway) but they are not investing in that either, mostly due to protesters. There was a plan 15 years ago to put a barrage across the Severn which would supply about 1/5 the power needed in England and wales, which looked set to go ahead until there were 'mass protests' from environmentalists. (even though the ones I saw had a couple hundred people at most)

[Jolle]

The only way 'we' will ever hit our targets is to go nuclear, and move from one set of protesters to another.

At the moment the amount of energy from renewable and nuclear is about the same, still trailing behind fossil fuel. I don't see why investing in nuclear would be easier then investing in hydro, thermal, wind and solar power.

Mostly because it runs 24/7, which would be with tidal (well 20/7 anyway) but they are not investing in that either, mostly due to protesters. There was a plan 15 years ago to put a barrage across the Severn which would supply about 1/5 the power needed in England and wales, which looked set to go ahead until there were 'mass protests' from environmentalists. (even though the ones I saw had a couple hundred people at most)

The UK indeed falls behind on other European countries. In the Netherlands for instance, we invest a lot in wind parks outside the coast line. Also in our claimed land, Flevoland, the "Polders", are more and more full of turbines. Our two nuclear plants are not renewed and will be decommissioned when there is enough power from other neutral sources. Germany is on a same style of program as well.

[Big Tea]

At the moment the amount of energy from renewable and nuclear is about the same, still trailing behind fossil fuel. I don't see why investing in nuclear would be easier then investing in hydro, thermal, wind and solar power.

Mostly because it runs 24/7, which would be with tidal (well 20/7 anyway) but they are not investing in that either, mostly due to protesters. There was a plan 15 years ago to put a barrage across the Severn which would supply about 1/5 the power needed in England and wales, which looked set to go ahead until there were 'mass protests' from environmentalists. (even though the ones I saw had a couple hundred people at most)

The UK indeed falls behind on other European countries. In the Netherlands for instance, we invest a lot in wind parks outside the coast line. Also in our claimed land, Flevoland, the "Polders", are more and more full of turbines. Our two nuclear plants are not renewed and will be decommissioned when there is enough power from other neutral sources. Germany is on a same style of program as well.

Far too sensible for UK government