RE: Smouldering ruins: PH Blog
Discussion
Guvernator said:
We don't need to replace cars, we just need to replace the fuel that powers them. Also contrary to popular belief, the world isn't actually overpopulated so we don't need to stop consuming or stop producing children either. Humans only take up about 3% of the land mass of the earth with agriculture taking up another 40% so we just have to be smarter about where we live and how we utilise the land to grow food\resources etc.
It's all solvable problems if the will was there to do it but we are too comfortable in how we live at present and lots of people make huge amounts of money from the current status quo. We don't need to stop growing as a species, we just need to grow smarter. Invest in genuinely new energy sources (no I am not talking about wind farms etc) we need to solve fusion or some such and get smarter about how we produce meat and grow crops. I know GM crops aren't popular among the ecof*ckwits (good word) through knee jerk reactions without actually understanding what it means but it genuinely could solve a lot of our food production problems. Likewise meat can be grown artificially to a much better standard but the "organic" movement means this is seen as evil. Whether this all happens is another matter as it requires joined up, rational thinking by the powers that be as well as the general population which is currently beyond most it seems.
Current population levels are only tolerable because the vast majority are dirt-poor. Once they start aspiring to (and getting) a more Western lifestyle the sIt's all solvable problems if the will was there to do it but we are too comfortable in how we live at present and lots of people make huge amounts of money from the current status quo. We don't need to stop growing as a species, we just need to grow smarter. Invest in genuinely new energy sources (no I am not talking about wind farms etc) we need to solve fusion or some such and get smarter about how we produce meat and grow crops. I know GM crops aren't popular among the ecof*ckwits (good word) through knee jerk reactions without actually understanding what it means but it genuinely could solve a lot of our food production problems. Likewise meat can be grown artificially to a much better standard but the "organic" movement means this is seen as evil. Whether this all happens is another matter as it requires joined up, rational thinking by the powers that be as well as the general population which is currently beyond most it seems.
t is going to hit the fan.otolith said:
Guvernator said:
We don't need to replace cars, we just need to replace the fuel that powers them. Also contrary to popular belief, the world isn't actually overpopulated so we don't need to stop consuming or stop producing children either. Humans only take up about 3% of the land mass of the earth with agriculture taking up another 40% so we just have to be smarter about where we live and how we utilise the land to grow food\resources etc.
It's all solvable problems if the will was there to do it but we are too comfortable in how we live at present and lots of people make huge amounts of money from the current status quo. We don't need to stop growing as a species, we just need to grow smarter. Invest in genuinely new energy sources (no I am not talking about wind farms etc) we need to solve fusion or some such and get smarter about how we produce meat and grow crops. I know GM crops aren't popular among the ecof*ckwits (good word) through knee jerk reactions without actually understanding what it means but it genuinely could solve a lot of our food production problems. Likewise meat can be grown artificially to a much better standard but the "organic" movement means this is seen as evil. Whether this all happens is another matter as it requires joined up, rational thinking by the powers that be as well as the general population which is currently beyond most it seems.
Current population levels are only tolerable because the vast majority are dirt-poor. Once they start aspiring to (and getting) a more Western lifestyle the sIt's all solvable problems if the will was there to do it but we are too comfortable in how we live at present and lots of people make huge amounts of money from the current status quo. We don't need to stop growing as a species, we just need to grow smarter. Invest in genuinely new energy sources (no I am not talking about wind farms etc) we need to solve fusion or some such and get smarter about how we produce meat and grow crops. I know GM crops aren't popular among the ecof*ckwits (good word) through knee jerk reactions without actually understanding what it means but it genuinely could solve a lot of our food production problems. Likewise meat can be grown artificially to a much better standard but the "organic" movement means this is seen as evil. Whether this all happens is another matter as it requires joined up, rational thinking by the powers that be as well as the general population which is currently beyond most it seems.
t is going to hit the fan.hufggfg said:
Lots of this I agree with, and think it will probably happen over the next 10 years.
I think we'll see a move of the "white goods" type of personal vehicle move over to electric, leaving the petrol likely only to be used by enthusiasts. Sure, it'll cost 3x as much, but your day-to-day transport will be vastly cheaper (and of course much more environmentally friendly), then you can actually enjoy the precious petrol you put into the ICE car you keep for enjoyment purposes only.
No chance, maybe for a short while but if everyone moves to electric cars they will be taxed accordingly, if you think the government is just going to wave goodbye to the revenue they currently take on fuel, VED etc. you're deluded.I think we'll see a move of the "white goods" type of personal vehicle move over to electric, leaving the petrol likely only to be used by enthusiasts. Sure, it'll cost 3x as much, but your day-to-day transport will be vastly cheaper (and of course much more environmentally friendly), then you can actually enjoy the precious petrol you put into the ICE car you keep for enjoyment purposes only.
otolith said:
Current population levels are only tolerable because the vast majority are dirt-poor. Once they start aspiring to (and getting) a more Western lifestyle the st is going to hit the fan.
I read an estimate that if the whole world lived to the same standards as developed countries, we'd need many times the number of worlds to make it sustainable.t is going to hit the fan.According to the UN (google Hans Rosling, etc) a far lower percentage of people live in poverty than ever before, despite a growing population and wealth inequality. Already a lot of the world has moved out of poverty in the last century towards 'just' poor, and millions more will do so in the next decade.
Even with a lot of exciting new technology emerging this century, we are all going to have to keep moving slowly towards a fairer, sustainable version of the world we live in now to survive indefinitely. It's happening, but progress is slow because environmental issues are difficult to reconcile with profit (at least without government intervention through taxation, subsidies and regulation).
However:
I do foresee a time in the next century, when population control will naturally come about without government intervention. Countries that are developed have very low birth rates, so as more countries develop I believe that population growth will eventually stop and reach a natural balance. Same as capitalism and income growth. Eventually there will be no more poor countries to exploit, and capitalism will naturally balance out and reach a point of no real average rise in income within countries.
Edited by iloveboost on Tuesday 29th September 21:31
iloveboost said:
According to the UN (google Hans Rosling, etc) a far lower percentage of people live in poverty than ever before, despite a growing population and wealth inequality. Already a lot of the world has moved out of poverty in the last century towards 'just' poor, and millions more will do so in the next decade.
Very true. And even more st is going to hit the fan as they do.OK, maybe not the absolute latest numbers, but in 2005...
Nearly a billion people lived on under $1/day
Half of the world's population lived on under $2.50/day
80% of the world's population lived on under $10/day
Nearly a billion people were illiterate
Over a billion people had no access to adequate clean water, and 2.6bn had no access to basic sanitation
Right now, all those people are struggling to stay alive. As they get their basic needs met, they're going to start wanting to live like the people they see in the developed world - they'll start to dream of one day having things that you and I take for granted.
RacerMike said:
RoverP6B said:
Direct injection petrols can go the same way too, notice how every modern petrol car has dieselly-black exhaust tips... it's the same old NOx again... ruins the sound of an otherwise nice engine too IMO, Ferrari F12 sounds anodyne compared to 550, which had port injection... interesting that the Ricardo V8 in the McLarens is port injected...
Not sure that really stands up under scrutiny does it? The 12C/P1 engine is generally regarded as sounding pretty souless, and there are plenty of DI engines out there that sounds fantastic. Notably, the Jag V6 and V8 Supercharged engines are DI, as are the engines in the Ferrari 458 and Porsche 911 GT3/RS...And as for black exhaust tips.... nothing to do with NOx. NOx is a colourless gas. The black soot in diesel engines is particulates from the combustion of diesel (which is now trapped in a DPF), and the soot on a petrol engine exhaust has nothing to do with particulates. If anything, DFI means the air/fuel ratio is more precisely controlled, which will greatly reduce the amount of overly rich running and will reduce the amount of 'black' on the exhaust.
OK, I was getting mixed up between NOx and soot particulates, but the two go hand-in-hand. DPFs don't trap everything by any means, and you do get substantially more soot from DI petrol than with PI petrol.
Mr GrimNasty said:
The single thing that has eradicated more poverty than anything else is cheap abundant energy - there's currently only one practical way - fossil fuels.
You are absolutely right. As rich westerners it is our duty to use our advanced technology to give up fossil fuels so that poverty stricken areas of the word can use it to build the infrastructure which they need. I think we are all finally in agreement.Imagine how much better off we will be when we have enough wind farms, solar panels and energy storage systems that we have more energy than we know what to do with. At the moment it will never be cheaper than the price of coal but in 30 years who knows.
RoverP6B said:
RacerMike said:
RoverP6B said:
Direct injection petrols can go the same way too, notice how every modern petrol car has dieselly-black exhaust tips... it's the same old NOx again... ruins the sound of an otherwise nice engine too IMO, Ferrari F12 sounds anodyne compared to 550, which had port injection... interesting that the Ricardo V8 in the McLarens is port injected...
Not sure that really stands up under scrutiny does it? The 12C/P1 engine is generally regarded as sounding pretty souless, and there are plenty of DI engines out there that sounds fantastic. Notably, the Jag V6 and V8 Supercharged engines are DI, as are the engines in the Ferrari 458 and Porsche 911 GT3/RS...And as for black exhaust tips.... nothing to do with NOx. NOx is a colourless gas. The black soot in diesel engines is particulates from the combustion of diesel (which is now trapped in a DPF), and the soot on a petrol engine exhaust has nothing to do with particulates. If anything, DFI means the air/fuel ratio is more precisely controlled, which will greatly reduce the amount of overly rich running and will reduce the amount of 'black' on the exhaust.
OK, I was getting mixed up between NOx and soot particulates, but the two go hand-in-hand. DPFs don't trap everything by any means, and you do get substantially more soot from DI petrol than with PI petrol.
ctallchris said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The single thing that has eradicated more poverty than anything else is cheap abundant energy - there's currently only one practical way - fossil fuels.
You are absolutely right. As rich westerners it is our duty to use our advanced technology to give up fossil fuels so that poverty stricken areas of the word can use it to build the infrastructure which they need. I think we are all finally in agreement.Imagine how much better off we will be when we have enough wind farms, solar panels and energy storage systems that we have more energy than we know what to do with. At the moment it will never be cheaper than the price of coal but in 30 years who knows.
The only real option is nuclear power, wind farms and solar panels are far to affected by the fickle nature of our weather. Also in the winter when most power is required is generally when solar / wind energy is at its lowest level.
Solar panels decline in efficiency over time, so the cost of continuous replacement would also need to be factored in, but this would be little different to factoring in the cost of ensuring continuous fuel supplies to power stations using the current crop of fuels.
The only sensible renewable source for an island nation such as the UK might be tidal power, but viable large scale systems seem to be a long long way off at present.
The current population has rocketed on the back of fossil fuel use, but when fossil fuels run out, as they will, since they are not a finite energy source, what happens to the population would be anyone's guess. Hopefully by then we might have developed viable alternate mass sources of energy.
Since we have no control over population levels, the danger is that we would just use new sources of energy to increase the population still further. Fine for us, but what of the effect of that, on just about every other species, and their habitats on the planet.
Not sure I would want a world where humans are the only large animal left on the planet, even if it was ok for humans.
If there was enough buffering, we could use just solar and wind but we don’t need to because we know from Stern that we only need to reduce fossil fuel use by 80% so we can continue to use them at a reduced rate. In any case we learnt some time ago to have a wide energy mix and not to limit supply to just a few sources so nuclear, solar, wind, wave, tidal and fossil fuels can all be integrated. If there is a large take up of EVs it may be possible to use some of their batteries as a buffer. Probably several companies will come up with different buffers e.g. electrical batteries, hydrogen, hydro etc. We can also reduce consumption a lot. Consumption is falling but there’s plenty more to do, plenty of wastage going on, we could be a lot more efficient. Reducing consumption must be the cheapest way to go.
The way to go is to start pouring money into genuine long terms alternatives such as Fusion.
In a 60 year period man kind went from never having flown to landing on the moon. From 1939 to 1967 we went from 300 mph to 25,000 mph.
Just look at how much computer technology has advanced in the last 40 years.
The reality is when we want to, we make massive leaps forward in technology over relatively small periods of time. Neccessity is the mother of invention and the replacement of fossil fuels as our primary energy source is well overdue.
In a 60 year period man kind went from never having flown to landing on the moon. From 1939 to 1967 we went from 300 mph to 25,000 mph.
Just look at how much computer technology has advanced in the last 40 years.
The reality is when we want to, we make massive leaps forward in technology over relatively small periods of time. Neccessity is the mother of invention and the replacement of fossil fuels as our primary energy source is well overdue.
Quite incredible answers of VW apologists here, especially when a nearby topic is "The world we live in" where pistonheaders complain about the individualism in our societies.
Yet in this topic, 90% of VAG TDI drivers are happy with their cars because they personnally get good mpgs, and could not care less about the hundreds or thousands of premature deaths caused by NOx.
The fact that the legislator (ie the people) made what it could to decrease, through legislation, the level of NOx in cities, and that these measures were defeated by manufacturers, as shown by the lack of any decrease in NOx levels, should make people aware of the fact that clean diesel does not exist (yet?).
The consequences should be twofold:
- the test can be legally made irrelevant (ie better emission management in driving similar to the test), so the test should be changed.
- some manufacturers were not even able to circumvent the test legally, cheated (better emissions only in the test), and should be punished severely (ie: cars that do not meet the necessary Euro emission limits should be bought back/upgraded at the expense of mpgs, CO2 emissions reassessed and tax consequences of the reassessment paid by VW, and fines should be levied).
All this in the name of what we decided was important, ie: public health > mpgs/CO2.
Remembers these cars could be at least banned from selling, but also banned from being driven. All this could be done on the grounds that they do not, and never did, conform to their homologation sheet, so CoC is not valid. Then we would see whether the apologists still follow VW...
Yet in this topic, 90% of VAG TDI drivers are happy with their cars because they personnally get good mpgs, and could not care less about the hundreds or thousands of premature deaths caused by NOx.
The fact that the legislator (ie the people) made what it could to decrease, through legislation, the level of NOx in cities, and that these measures were defeated by manufacturers, as shown by the lack of any decrease in NOx levels, should make people aware of the fact that clean diesel does not exist (yet?).
The consequences should be twofold:
- the test can be legally made irrelevant (ie better emission management in driving similar to the test), so the test should be changed.
- some manufacturers were not even able to circumvent the test legally, cheated (better emissions only in the test), and should be punished severely (ie: cars that do not meet the necessary Euro emission limits should be bought back/upgraded at the expense of mpgs, CO2 emissions reassessed and tax consequences of the reassessment paid by VW, and fines should be levied).
All this in the name of what we decided was important, ie: public health > mpgs/CO2.
Remembers these cars could be at least banned from selling, but also banned from being driven. All this could be done on the grounds that they do not, and never did, conform to their homologation sheet, so CoC is not valid. Then we would see whether the apologists still follow VW...
gonzales_turbo said:
Quite incredible answers of VW apologists here, especially when a nearby topic is "The world we live in" where pistonheaders complain about the individualism in our societies.
Yet in this topic, 90% of VAG TDI drivers are happy with their cars because they personnally get good mpgs, and could not care less about the hundreds or thousands of premature deaths caused by NOx.
The fact that the legislator (ie the people) made what it could to decrease, through legislation, the level of NOx in cities, and that these measures were defeated by manufacturers, as shown by the lack of any decrease in NOx levels, should make people aware of the fact that clean diesel does not exist (yet?).
The consequences should be twofold:
- the test can be legally made irrelevant (ie better emission management in driving similar to the test), so the test should be changed.
- some manufacturers were not even able to circumvent the test legally, cheated (better emissions only in the test), and should be punished severely (ie: cars that do not meet the necessary Euro emission limits should be bought back/upgraded at the expense of mpgs, CO2 emissions reassessed and tax consequences of the reassessment paid by VW, and fines should be levied).
All this in the name of what we decided was important, ie: public health > mpgs/CO2.
Remembers these cars could be at least banned from selling, but also banned from being driven. All this could be done on the grounds that they do not, and never did, conform to their homologation sheet, so CoC is not valid. Then we would see whether the apologists still follow VW...
I'm not sure what a VW apologist is, I don't think I'm one, I have an ancient diesel Bora which I bought only because it was a diesel auto and was available to me 4 years ago.Yet in this topic, 90% of VAG TDI drivers are happy with their cars because they personnally get good mpgs, and could not care less about the hundreds or thousands of premature deaths caused by NOx.
The fact that the legislator (ie the people) made what it could to decrease, through legislation, the level of NOx in cities, and that these measures were defeated by manufacturers, as shown by the lack of any decrease in NOx levels, should make people aware of the fact that clean diesel does not exist (yet?).
The consequences should be twofold:
- the test can be legally made irrelevant (ie better emission management in driving similar to the test), so the test should be changed.
- some manufacturers were not even able to circumvent the test legally, cheated (better emissions only in the test), and should be punished severely (ie: cars that do not meet the necessary Euro emission limits should be bought back/upgraded at the expense of mpgs, CO2 emissions reassessed and tax consequences of the reassessment paid by VW, and fines should be levied).
All this in the name of what we decided was important, ie: public health > mpgs/CO2.
Remembers these cars could be at least banned from selling, but also banned from being driven. All this could be done on the grounds that they do not, and never did, conform to their homologation sheet, so CoC is not valid. Then we would see whether the apologists still follow VW...
I would address posts like your though which I regard as somewhat bizarre.
These hundreds of thousands of deaths through Nox caused by derv cars. Could you actually link to one please? I mean, historically only a handful of thousands of people per year are killed in road traffic accidents yet most of us possibly know of someone personally, or know someone who knows someone who has been killed in an rta, and definitely could post a link in a moment to someone who died of an rta.
I've had many friends and family die through cancer and heart disease etc, but I've never known anyone die of nox, despite the death rate being drastically higher than rta figures.
So it should be very easy indeed to identify someone who has died of nox or died of diesel. Yet I can't pinpoint anyone. Can you?
heebeegeetee said:
I've had many friends and family die through cancer and heart disease etc, but I've never known anyone die of nox, despite the death rate being drastically higher than rta figures.
So it should be very easy indeed to identify someone who has died of nox or died of diesel. Yet I can't pinpoint anyone. Can you?
You can't actually prove that an individual heavy smoker who died of lung cancer or heart disease was killed by smoking, because both conditions occur in non-smokers. You can only look at the statistics and conclude that there is an increase in the likelihood of those conditions in smokers. So it is with air quality.So it should be very easy indeed to identify someone who has died of nox or died of diesel. Yet I can't pinpoint anyone. Can you?
heebeegeetee said:
gonzales_turbo said:
Quite incredible answers of VW apologists here, especially when a nearby topic is "The world we live in" where pistonheaders complain about the individualism in our societies.
Yet in this topic, 90% of VAG TDI drivers are happy with their cars because they personnally get good mpgs, and could not care less about the hundreds or thousands of premature deaths caused by NOx.
The fact that the legislator (ie the people) made what it could to decrease, through legislation, the level of NOx in cities, and that these measures were defeated by manufacturers, as shown by the lack of any decrease in NOx levels, should make people aware of the fact that clean diesel does not exist (yet?).
The consequences should be twofold:
- the test can be legally made irrelevant (ie better emission management in driving similar to the test), so the test should be changed.
- some manufacturers were not even able to circumvent the test legally, cheated (better emissions only in the test), and should be punished severely (ie: cars that do not meet the necessary Euro emission limits should be bought back/upgraded at the expense of mpgs, CO2 emissions reassessed and tax consequences of the reassessment paid by VW, and fines should be levied).
All this in the name of what we decided was important, ie: public health > mpgs/CO2.
Remembers these cars could be at least banned from selling, but also banned from being driven. All this could be done on the grounds that they do not, and never did, conform to their homologation sheet, so CoC is not valid. Then we would see whether the apologists still follow VW...
I'm not sure what a VW apologist is, I don't think I'm one, I have an ancient diesel Bora which I bought only because it was a diesel auto and was available to me 4 years ago.Yet in this topic, 90% of VAG TDI drivers are happy with their cars because they personnally get good mpgs, and could not care less about the hundreds or thousands of premature deaths caused by NOx.
The fact that the legislator (ie the people) made what it could to decrease, through legislation, the level of NOx in cities, and that these measures were defeated by manufacturers, as shown by the lack of any decrease in NOx levels, should make people aware of the fact that clean diesel does not exist (yet?).
The consequences should be twofold:
- the test can be legally made irrelevant (ie better emission management in driving similar to the test), so the test should be changed.
- some manufacturers were not even able to circumvent the test legally, cheated (better emissions only in the test), and should be punished severely (ie: cars that do not meet the necessary Euro emission limits should be bought back/upgraded at the expense of mpgs, CO2 emissions reassessed and tax consequences of the reassessment paid by VW, and fines should be levied).
All this in the name of what we decided was important, ie: public health > mpgs/CO2.
Remembers these cars could be at least banned from selling, but also banned from being driven. All this could be done on the grounds that they do not, and never did, conform to their homologation sheet, so CoC is not valid. Then we would see whether the apologists still follow VW...
I would address posts like your though which I regard as somewhat bizarre.
These hundreds of thousands of deaths through Nox caused by derv cars. Could you actually link to one please? I mean, historically only a handful of thousands of people per year are killed in road traffic accidents yet most of us possibly know of someone personally, or know someone who knows someone who has been killed in an rta, and definitely could post a link in a moment to someone who died of an rta.
I've had many friends and family die through cancer and heart disease etc, but I've never known anyone die of nox, despite the death rate being drastically higher than rta figures.
So it should be very easy indeed to identify someone who has died of nox or died of diesel. Yet I can't pinpoint anyone. Can you?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff