New diesel and petrol cars banned from UK roads by 2030
Discussion
aeropilot said:
European makers won't be stopping making ICE only vehicles either.
This looney UK dictate (and the similar looney one by the French last month) isn't about ending production, it's about them not being allowed to be sold after that date.
And as for our US cousins, rumours from within California is that they may well bring in similar state law banning ICE only sales long before the date of our UK one.
Not too surprising as California have been pushing lower emissions technology for a while now. I've had Californa imports from the '80s that were well ahead of European cars in terms of emissions control technology. Didn't stop the auto makers from selling the "full fat" unrestricted versions in the other states though!This looney UK dictate (and the similar looney one by the French last month) isn't about ending production, it's about them not being allowed to be sold after that date.
And as for our US cousins, rumours from within California is that they may well bring in similar state law banning ICE only sales long before the date of our UK one.
rovermorris999 said:
I've not looked closely at hybrids and BEV. Can someone tell how the use of heating and aircon impacts on range? I would assume in a hybrid the ICE would have to run to heat the car and using lights/hrw/wipers etc will reduce the range. Am I right and if so, how much?
The electric heater might be 1kW, max. The other ancillaries probably 1-2kW. Work it out 
Dazed and Confused said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Monkeylegend said:
Dazed and Confused said:
powerstroke said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Why not just ban diesels and sooner than 2040?
Because they are saying petrol is just as polluting as the latest diesels .."the air pollution penalty for diesel cars is often justified by the reduced CO2 emissions over petrol"
"the lack of progress in cleaning city air can be blamed on the steady increase in diesel vehicles on our roads"
Have a read and learn something.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/10/pollut...
Why is it only diesels that are banned from the LEZ zone?
Or Dieselgate - VW's flawed attempt at making diesels appear nicer to the environment and people's lungs than they actually are. Diesels, not petrol.
boxedin said:
I fail to see what the issue is here, like many 'issues' on PH, but I digress.
1. 20+ years away.
2. only effects *new* vehicles.
3. the govt. had to say 'something'.
4. govts tend to change 'once or twice' in 20 years, and their minds every other day.
5. technology changes.
6. mindset changes.
7. the middle east will be exporting solar power instead of oil.
Anyway, the dream of road pricing will be here by then in some form or another to replace fuel duty in the long run.
GFoS will become the modern day version of a steam rally.
Exactly. To sum up (if I may), is not to imagine the change planned for 20+ years happening now.1. 20+ years away.
2. only effects *new* vehicles.
3. the govt. had to say 'something'.
4. govts tend to change 'once or twice' in 20 years, and their minds every other day.
5. technology changes.
6. mindset changes.
7. the middle east will be exporting solar power instead of oil.
Anyway, the dream of road pricing will be here by then in some form or another to replace fuel duty in the long run.
GFoS will become the modern day version of a steam rally.
I copied this, and it sounds plausible:
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage!!!!!
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate 'green car' is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery-powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?
You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second.
The new tests which affect all 2008 models, and newer ones, give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius's EPA down by 25 per cent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.
However, It gets much worse...
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius' battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.
"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside," said Canadian Greenpeace energy coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce 'nickel foam.' From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?
Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and Build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius's arch nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion XB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage!!!!!
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate 'green car' is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery-powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?
You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second.
The new tests which affect all 2008 models, and newer ones, give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius's EPA down by 25 per cent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.
However, It gets much worse...
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius' battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.
"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside," said Canadian Greenpeace energy coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce 'nickel foam.' From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?
Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and Build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius's arch nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion XB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
rovermorris999 said:
I've not looked closely at hybrids and BEV. Can someone tell how the use of heating and aircon impacts on range? I would assume in a hybrid the ICE would have to run to heat the car and using lights/hrw/wipers etc will reduce the range. Am I right and if so, how much?
Depends.Heating and air-conditioning can be run when only on Electric. Yes it will have an adverse effect on range.
However, majority of EV/PHEV cars have a pre-conditioning mode, which means you can use the plugged in charge power to run your air-conditioning or heater before you get it, reducing the biggest stress on the system.
Also means never scraping ice off your car again.
If the purpose of this ban on petrol and diesel cars is to reduce air pollution, then it seems that the country must start building many, many nuclear power plants straight away, so that they are in place by 2040. Enough nuclear plants must be built to cover base load, with a bit of spare capacity provided by other methods of generation such as wind power.
Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
[quote=Pan Pan Pan
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
[/quote]
Just add 'economically' to your last sentence. Sure, we could build vast solar power satellites and beam the collected energy back to Earth, but at what cost?
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
[/quote]
Just add 'economically' to your last sentence. Sure, we could build vast solar power satellites and beam the collected energy back to Earth, but at what cost?
Pan Pan Pan said:
If the purpose of this ban on petrol and diesel cars is to reduce air pollution, then it seems that the country must start building many, many nuclear power plants straight away, so that they are in place by 2040. Enough nuclear plants must be built to cover base load, with a bit of spare capacity provided by other methods of generation such as wind power.
Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
If, IF one goes down the road of the interpretation of the announcement as full EV only fleet in time, not hybrids, and that's an extreme interpretation, then to take your first point it means building ten new full fat 3GW power stations to cope with the increased demand.Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
Then take account of how much of our current capacity is soon to be phased out coal, and one sees the problem facing the country.
Then look at the timescale to build new nuclear stations, and it becomes evident that the government claim this will be done by green power is just not feasible.
So, there would to be wholesale builds of CCGT plant running on gas, ooh green blob faints, but seriously it's necessary regardless of the switch to EV malarkey. Now look at the current 3 day blocking protest up in Lancashire to stop work progressing on the fracking drill site.
s2art said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
Just add 'economically' to your last sentence. Sure, we could build vast solar power satellites and beam the collected energy back to Earth, but at what cost?turbobloke said:
This represents some of those relatively recent improvements for London in terms of major pollutant levels, from 1976 to 1996, blue line. It's been falling steadily,. Note that the asthma incidence line has been rising at the same time.
Data from a report for the NHS Executive entitled Transport and Health in London
Did you realise the title says "National"? It's hard to imagine if you live in London, but there are other places in the UK Data from a report for the NHS Executive entitled Transport and Health in London
FiF said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
If the purpose of this ban on petrol and diesel cars is to reduce air pollution, then it seems that the country must start building many, many nuclear power plants straight away, so that they are in place by 2040. Enough nuclear plants must be built to cover base load, with a bit of spare capacity provided by other methods of generation such as wind power.
Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
If, IF one goes down the road of the interpretation of the announcement as full EV only fleet in time, not hybrids, and that's an extreme interpretation, then to take your first point it means building ten new full fat 3GW power stations to cope with the increased demand.Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
Then take account of how much of our current capacity is soon to be phased out coal, and one sees the problem facing the country.
Then look at the timescale to build new nuclear stations, and it becomes evident that the government claim this will be done by green power is just not feasible.
So, there would to be wholesale builds of CCGT plant running on gas, ooh green blob faints, but seriously it's necessary regardless of the switch to EV malarkey. Now look at the current 3 day blocking protest up in Lancashire to stop work progressing on the fracking drill site.
Pan Pan Pan said:
If the purpose of this ban on petrol and diesel cars is to reduce air pollution, then it seems that the country must start building many, many nuclear power plants straight away, so that they are in place by 2040. Enough nuclear plants must be built to cover base load, with a bit of spare capacity provided by other methods of generation such as wind power.
Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
This sounds like a GCSE physics answer.Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
Electricity isn't the most dirty form of energy. It can be as clean or as dirty as you like. All other forms of automotive energy require significant energy input before they can be used in the automotive vehicle. Oil production and refining is energy intensive. Hydrogen production is hugely energy intensive. Biofuel is energy intensive to an unknown degree. By using Electricity directly you remove many inefficiencies involved in production of these other fuel sources.
Exploration vehicles? This is a tiny niche market within the grand scheme. No one is suggesting returning remote communities to horse and cart.
All energy doesn't come from the sun, they stop teaching that when you're 12. Huge amounts of energy on Earth come from radioactive particles, which coincidentally is also where the energy of the sun is derived.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's protesting too much and way off the mark. To date in this thread I haven't offered verbosity from a partisan position I've posted on and off with referenced sources and data where various PHers, bending the knee at a range of anglles to the green religion, have posted misleading statements often in the form of doggerel and soundbites. Nothing credible has been offered by way of reply, hence your name-calling signal of defeat.Your personal angle reveals an obvious lack of anything of substance to offer - this is not news. You could try countering the information I provide, but all you can do is try to shoot the messenger. Rather a pathetic approach but there we are, it happens. However if you've found something new that I've missed from over 30 years' reading the scientific literature on environmental science / chemistry and physics of planetary atmospheres (including this one) then don't be shy, it's better out than in. Post up and we can have a more adult conversation when you're ready for it.
If your habit of name calling could be put aside for a few moments, offering time to post some more relevant information with referenced sources, then fine, but who would hold their breath on that score, even indoors at a keyboard given the polluted air in buildings.
In any case rest easy as I'd have saved you the trouble - if anything credible existed I would heve posted about it before now. I have no vested interest in this matter, what I'm doing is putting accurate information on the thread and you don't approve, what a shame.
Evanivitch said:
Huge amounts of energy on Earth come from radioactive particles, which coincidentally is also where the energy of the sun is derived.
Point of order - solar energy production in a main sequence star is for all intents and purposes purely from hydrogen fusion. Which in turn is driven by pressure and heat from gravity and the fusion process itself. Radiation comes out as a side effect, as does helium which might be a radioactive isotope like He-2.
But you're right in a geological context about ground heating from radioisotope decay. Though those isotopes ultimately come from solar fusion too...
Jonesy23 said:
Evanivitch said:
Huge amounts of energy on Earth come from radioactive particles, which coincidentally is also where the energy of the sun is derived.
Point of order - solar energy production in a main sequence star is for all intents and purposes purely from hydrogen fusion. Which in turn is driven by pressure and heat from gravity and the fusion process itself. Radiation comes out as a side effect, as does helium which might be a radioactive isotope like He-2.
But you're right in a geological context about ground heating from radioisotope decay. Though those isotopes ultimately come from solar fusion too...
Elements beyond the region of iron in the periodic table aren't generated wholesale in the cores of main sequence stars, energy absorption rather than release is what happens in the attempt, which starts core collapse. These heavier elements such as uranium and thorium originate from neutron capture and beta decay in supernova events involving more massive stars, seeding the interstellar medum for future generations of stars and planets such as our Sun and the solar system. I would say you are aware but others may not be so hth.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff