Green Economy and UK
Discussion
It seems every politician is a man made climate change believer and all of the parties are set to throw billions at the issue, whether Conservative, Labour, Green or Liberal. Apparently the UK (especially Scotland if they get their independence) could be world leaders in the field as well as in producing electric cars (according to the conservatives).
Which UK companies would spearhead this revolution? Siemens or Toyota with a factory in the UK is not British.
It seems it will turn out like the old labour car scrapage scheme were the tax payer paid out millions to the benifit of car manufactures abroad like Korea, just much more expensive. What will the billions spent achieve in the reduction of these gases on a globel scale, 0.01% or something like that.
Recall the news that the steel works in S
horpe is to be taken over by the Chinese, politicians of both sides who came on TV to express their delight that yet another company is being taken over by foreign competitor. Yet we are trusting these people to make things better after Brexit (I voted to leave by the way in my wisdom).
Which UK companies would spearhead this revolution? Siemens or Toyota with a factory in the UK is not British.
It seems it will turn out like the old labour car scrapage scheme were the tax payer paid out millions to the benifit of car manufactures abroad like Korea, just much more expensive. What will the billions spent achieve in the reduction of these gases on a globel scale, 0.01% or something like that.
Recall the news that the steel works in S
horpe is to be taken over by the Chinese, politicians of both sides who came on TV to express their delight that yet another company is being taken over by foreign competitor. Yet we are trusting these people to make things better after Brexit (I voted to leave by the way in my wisdom).Edited by Macski on Sunday 1st December 00:53
All the green crap which our politicians spout is guff.
The pollution of the uk is produced by proxy of china and associated countries where we buy our products from.
There is no real green economy.Any country has to continue producing goods for other countries to purchase to keep the whole global market going.
In essence humans are the problem.
The pollution of the uk is produced by proxy of china and associated countries where we buy our products from.
There is no real green economy.Any country has to continue producing goods for other countries to purchase to keep the whole global market going.
In essence humans are the problem.
Why anyone thinks "green ideas" will be both environmental positives and big money makers is beyond me. We can't even get carrier bags right. If anthing, political posturing and the need to be seen to be "doing something" has made that issue worse, and at 20p per bag the supermarkets are laughing all the way to their bonuses. Bigger "solutions" are likely to be even worse.
Some elements of it can be. Investment in infrastructure can be green - if it attracts people out of cars. I suspect Crossrail (as an example) will be “Green”, assuming it works, it will certainly stop me driving into London because getting to Liverpool St in 60 minutes is a hell of a lot better than sitting in a car for 150 minutes.
Unfortunately, most of it is pissed up the wall. Smartmeters, an utter waste of money that will do nothing. Home insulation projects will be managed by cowboys, Buying batteries from Tesla to stabilise the windmills we’ve bought from the Norwegians .... etc.
Unfortunately, most of it is pissed up the wall. Smartmeters, an utter waste of money that will do nothing. Home insulation projects will be managed by cowboys, Buying batteries from Tesla to stabilise the windmills we’ve bought from the Norwegians .... etc.
rxe said:
Some elements of it can be. Investment in infrastructure can be green - if it attracts people out of cars. I suspect Crossrail (as an example) will be “Green”, assuming it works, it will certainly stop me driving into London because getting to Liverpool St in 60 minutes is a hell of a lot better than sitting in a car for 150 minutes.
Unfortunately, most of it is pissed up the wall. Smartmeters, an utter waste of money that will do nothing. Home insulation projects will be managed by cowboys, Buying batteries from Tesla to stabilise the windmills we’ve bought from the Norwegians .... etc.
"attracting" people out of cars is going to work like the carrier bags - forcing us to use and pay more for inferior solutions with no environmental benefits. I've no idea why yould would "suspect" Crossrail of being green - scheduled mass transport generally isn't.Unfortunately, most of it is pissed up the wall. Smartmeters, an utter waste of money that will do nothing. Home insulation projects will be managed by cowboys, Buying batteries from Tesla to stabilise the windmills we’ve bought from the Norwegians .... etc.
skyrover said:
It's about control.. nothing more.
Has any so called green idea resulted in less government interference?
I don't really understand this argument. Who controls current energy sources, oil, gas, coal and nuclear? Big businesses, state owned entities and if you're a into conspiracies the deep state, shadow government, Rockefellers etc.Has any so called green idea resulted in less government interference?
Therefore, how can renewable energy be any more centrally controlled than what we have today? If anything, new renewable supplies are owned and run by small, localised co-operatives, therefore there is less central control than with the current fossil fuel sources.
Ignoring climate change, in my completely unscientific opinion I can't see why moving to renewable sources is a bad idea. Fossil fuel powered energy requires huge upfront costs to built a coal or gas-fired power station and then large ongoing costs to mine/extract the fuel, transport it and so on.
Renewable sources also require huge upfront costs to build, but then the source of energy, sun, wind, tidal is effectively free.
Therefore, in the long term, renewables should not only be cheaper to run financially, but also not have the huge decommissioning costs and risk of environmental damage.
Renewable sources also require huge upfront costs to build, but then the source of energy, sun, wind, tidal is effectively free.
Therefore, in the long term, renewables should not only be cheaper to run financially, but also not have the huge decommissioning costs and risk of environmental damage.
All I see is all the "green policies" ultimately failing.
Smart meters have been an utter farce from start to end and appear to have negligible benefit ("Ooh I've used £2 of electric today, best not cook a meal tonight" said no-one ever).
Charging for plastic bags has been miserably failed - the 5p bags have been replaced by more expensive ones that the companies are pocketing the money from, meantime plastic waste from bags has increased. The proposed answer ? make the bags cost £1 instead. No doubt, when that fails they'll be £2, then £3 and so on.
Roads policies appear to amount to building cycle lanes everywhere and doing nothing about congestion and traffic build up. We've no interest in making roads efficient or to avoid pollution related congestion where its not suitable/possible to walk/cycle.
Currently there will be a ban of gas boilers in new houses from 2025, there is widespread doubt that this is practical.
We're obsessed with moving to EVs, Lithium could become a serious problem https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-...
64% of the US energy supply comes from coal or gas.
The elephant in the room is that in the Western world we've become more environmentally conscious and tried to remove the "bad" stuff, but in reality all we did was get China etc to do our dirty work for us. As a result they've become a massive polluter. To date, we haven't solved anything in my eyes.
Smart meters have been an utter farce from start to end and appear to have negligible benefit ("Ooh I've used £2 of electric today, best not cook a meal tonight" said no-one ever).
Charging for plastic bags has been miserably failed - the 5p bags have been replaced by more expensive ones that the companies are pocketing the money from, meantime plastic waste from bags has increased. The proposed answer ? make the bags cost £1 instead. No doubt, when that fails they'll be £2, then £3 and so on.
Roads policies appear to amount to building cycle lanes everywhere and doing nothing about congestion and traffic build up. We've no interest in making roads efficient or to avoid pollution related congestion where its not suitable/possible to walk/cycle.
Currently there will be a ban of gas boilers in new houses from 2025, there is widespread doubt that this is practical.
We're obsessed with moving to EVs, Lithium could become a serious problem https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-...
64% of the US energy supply comes from coal or gas.
The elephant in the room is that in the Western world we've become more environmentally conscious and tried to remove the "bad" stuff, but in reality all we did was get China etc to do our dirty work for us. As a result they've become a massive polluter. To date, we haven't solved anything in my eyes.
Behind the parties' decision to climb aboard the Green bandwagon is cynical vote-grabbing. I don't think any of the parties have the slightest idea how in practice they will oversee the planting of enormous forests, or insulate millions of homes, or replace 30 million UK vehicles with electric ones. What they see is lots of young voters who've been scared into belief in a green agenda, and may vote accordingly.
My faith in any government's ability to deliver a project on time, to budget, with effective results is zero.
The only thing that I think they might deliver is wind power, perhaps solar power. And it would be lovely if the Western world could turn round to the crazy despots of the Middle East and say "we don't need your oil any more, you're on your own now."
My faith in any government's ability to deliver a project on time, to budget, with effective results is zero.
The only thing that I think they might deliver is wind power, perhaps solar power. And it would be lovely if the Western world could turn round to the crazy despots of the Middle East and say "we don't need your oil any more, you're on your own now."
rscott said:
Lithium is an issue with EVs, but ICE vehicles require plenty of rare earth minerals extracted in similar conditions.
EVa make a massive difference to local air quality and also tend to become less polluting as time goes by, simply because their power sources are improving.
Modern ICE vehicles may use rare earth minerals because electronics but I doubt cars built 40 years ago used many if any or for that matter much in the way of plastic either. Modern cars are at least twice as heavy as older cars due to all the electronics and 'driver aids' meaning it takes twice the power to run them. If car producers were serious about being green they would be building lighter, simpler cars using 100% recyclable materials made using green production methods.EVa make a massive difference to local air quality and also tend to become less polluting as time goes by, simply because their power sources are improving.
I think there is an obvious way forward for the UK economy to do 'green' properly but until there is an acceptance that doing it properly does not involve mining lithium in other countries to build batteries which we cannot even recycle at the moment it is all pissing in the wind. Once again our decisions seem to be based upon EVs are s
t but a little bit less st than ICE. I am worried that we will, by promoting EVs go down another rabbit hole like that of Diesel car. rscott said:
Lithium is an issue with EVs, but ICE vehicles require plenty of rare earth minerals extracted in similar conditions.
EVa make a massive difference to local air quality and also tend to become less polluting as time goes by, simply because their power sources are improving.
Even if we end up scrapping 4/5 year old cars ? Or at the very least their batteries. We're about to get in to a very expensive circle of car ownership where the manufacturers will want to get their investment in to EV back. Leasing is common now and will become rife, this suits manufacturers who get recurring sales. The bean counters will ensure product costs are as low as possible, if that means cutting corners it'll happen.EVa make a massive difference to local air quality and also tend to become less polluting as time goes by, simply because their power sources are improving.
Not least, we've still got to find a way to produce all this electricity we're going to need.
I think Brave Fart is on the money - politcos are talking a lot about green issues, but they have little idea how to achieve what they're talking about, but they are good soundbites.
Vanden Saab said:
rscott said:
Lithium is an issue with EVs, but ICE vehicles require plenty of rare earth minerals extracted in similar conditions.
EVa make a massive difference to local air quality and also tend to become less polluting as time goes by, simply because their power sources are improving.
Modern ICE vehicles may use rare earth minerals because electronics but I doubt cars built 40 years ago used many if any or for that matter much in the way of plastic either. Modern cars are at least twice as heavy as older cars due to all the electronics and 'driver aids' meaning it takes twice the power to run them. If car producers were serious about being green they would be building lighter, simpler cars using 100% recyclable materials made using green production methods.EVa make a massive difference to local air quality and also tend to become less polluting as time goes by, simply because their power sources are improving.
I think there is an obvious way forward for the UK economy to do 'green' properly but until there is an acceptance that doing it properly does not involve mining lithium in other countries to build batteries which we cannot even recycle at the moment it is all pissing in the wind. Once again our decisions seem to be based upon EVs are s
t but a little bit less st than ICE. I am worried that we will, by promoting EVs go down another rabbit hole like that of Diesel car. A lot of the weight gain is for crash protection, especially around how they deal with the large lump of metal in front of the cabin..
Something EVs tend to avoid by having the battery pack spread out below the cabin.
Yes, EVs aren't light, but their effective mass is far lower because of the power recovered during regenerative braking.
Recycling of lithium batteries is improving - various companies claim to be able to recycle between 80 and 95% of the non-lithium content of the batteries. At the moment, recycling lithium is possible, but not cost effective (costs around 5 times as much as mining it) but there's massive amounts of research & development in improving those processes.
EVs aren't perfect, but their environmental impact is far less than that of petrol or diesel vehicles, even over as little as a 3 year life cycle. Beyond that point their impact is considerably less.
bazza white said:
Makes me laugh when people say the UK is greener than years ago not realising we outsourced dirty industries. The green revolution will only push heavy industry abroad.
For literally centuries the UK was known as the workshop of the world, supplying everything from nails to steam engines and ships to many other countries. This means that for centuries other countries have been exporting their CO2 emissions from all the things `they' wanted, to the UK.
On this basis that must make the UK one of the greenest countries on the planet.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Sunday 1st December 12:52
CzechItOut said:
Crafty_ said:
Even if we end up scrapping 4/5 year old cars ? Or at the very least their batteries.
Do you have any numbers for the numbers of 4-5 year old cars or even batteries that are being scrapped?Why would anyone buy a 3/4 year old car that has a battery already past its peak and has potential big bills looming when it would be possible to lease a new vehicle that has better range spec, brand new battery and is under warranty ?
At 5 years old, with a knackered battery cars will be an uneconomical repair. I expect we'll see cheapo battieres on the market from our Chinese friends, with varying degrees of success.Even if you can do it on the cheap, why would you bother when you can go lease a brand new car with better range etc and a fresh battery ?
Crafty_ said:
CzechItOut said:
Crafty_ said:
Even if we end up scrapping 4/5 year old cars ? Or at the very least their batteries.
Do you have any numbers for the numbers of 4-5 year old cars or even batteries that are being scrapped?Why would anyone buy a 3/4 year old car that has a battery already past its peak and has potential big bills looming when it would be possible to lease a new vehicle that has better range spec, brand new battery and is under warranty ?
At 5 years old, with a knackered battery cars will be an uneconomical repair. I expect we'll see cheapo battieres on the market from our Chinese friends, with varying degrees of success.Even if you can do it on the cheap, why would you bother when you can go lease a brand new car with better range etc and a fresh battery ?
And an interesting comment from Nissan that they see their batteries could be useful for 12 years beyond the 10 year expected life of the vehicle - https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-energies/europe...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff