RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
Archie2050 said:
DriveSnowdonia said:
Can we at least agree that the science on climate change is not settled and that the the over-reliance on the modelling of various future 'doom and gloom' scenarios based on unsettled inputs or theories is at best, unwise, or at worst downright scaremongering. And that throwing all of our eggs in a mass panic into one basket, and to hell with any unintended (or intended) consequences is just a little bit lacking in foresight and wisdom.
Nope.I posted a link earlier but read Unsettled? and you'll get an idea of how "The Science" misrepresents the actual data. Why it does so is left as an exercise for the reader.
DriveSnowdonia said:
Rather telling how you choose to play the man and not the ball. Same as it ever is with the myopic, agenda driven camp.
Anyway, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you mean 'trusted' official sources that have been approved by governments and various un-elected yet frequently corrupt or agenda driven global bodies? Because trusting those 'viable' sources went so well last time didn't it?
https://www.newsweek.com/america-covid-response-wa...
And:
https://nypost.com/2023/03/04/with-the-expert-covi...
You see all scientists agree don't they, so long as you censor, smear, ignore or choose not to fund the ones who don't agree. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
It is fair to say there is not 100% agreement.Anyway, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you mean 'trusted' official sources that have been approved by governments and various un-elected yet frequently corrupt or agenda driven global bodies? Because trusting those 'viable' sources went so well last time didn't it?
https://www.newsweek.com/america-covid-response-wa...
And:
https://nypost.com/2023/03/04/with-the-expert-covi...
You see all scientists agree don't they, so long as you censor, smear, ignore or choose not to fund the ones who don't agree. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
It is fair to say that the VAST majority of relevant climate scientists say CO2 is responsible for climate change.
This begs the question, why do you choose to believe the tiny minority who say the opposite.
As is normally asked... please be specific.
These fuels aren’t going solve the problems that the legally binding net zero targets have set out to do. This is why they will never be passed for use in anything other than extreme situations like motorsports etc. Unfortunately they do still produce a lot of emissions and when combusted they add other emissions such as NOx to the air which is not being removed to make the fuel. Net zero is not just carbon emissions!
FakeCarGuy said:
I 100% agree with everything you’ve said. As it stands right now, with our current tech and with what we’re currently able to do - EVs win 100% in terms of ‘green’ personal transport.
However, IF (and this is a big IF) we ever figure out how to effectively store hydrogen at a comparable energy:volume density as petrol at room temperature and atmospheric pressure (like, as some sort of ‘solid hydrogen salt’ or the ’solid-state-storage’ apparently possible by Plasma Kinetics) - then I think we do have a solid case for carbon neutral fuel.
Recently, we have made great strides in increasing the efficiency of electrolysis, so the only problem left to solve is in actually storing that hydrogen efficiently, effectively, and practically. And IF we can do that, then hydrogen ICEs will just make a ton of sense.
But, ultimately, regardless of whether I hope that researchers, companies, and governments will spend time and resources in an attempt to make such things possible - i will add that i’m not against EVs, and especially not Hybrids. Personally, I think EVs do take a lot of the fun out of driving - and they add to my frustration of cars getting heavier and heavier each generation - but i do understand them, and i think that they will be a brilliant replacement for the ‘everyday’ A to B car once the tech and infrastructure gets closer to full maturity.
Hydrogen in a fuel cell does make sense. One thing we need to get there is to have an abundance of renewable/carbon free energy production for it to work. Burning hydrogen in an ICE however is not viable. It still produces emissions like NOx, which it produces a lot of when burnt. However, IF (and this is a big IF) we ever figure out how to effectively store hydrogen at a comparable energy:volume density as petrol at room temperature and atmospheric pressure (like, as some sort of ‘solid hydrogen salt’ or the ’solid-state-storage’ apparently possible by Plasma Kinetics) - then I think we do have a solid case for carbon neutral fuel.
Recently, we have made great strides in increasing the efficiency of electrolysis, so the only problem left to solve is in actually storing that hydrogen efficiently, effectively, and practically. And IF we can do that, then hydrogen ICEs will just make a ton of sense.
But, ultimately, regardless of whether I hope that researchers, companies, and governments will spend time and resources in an attempt to make such things possible - i will add that i’m not against EVs, and especially not Hybrids. Personally, I think EVs do take a lot of the fun out of driving - and they add to my frustration of cars getting heavier and heavier each generation - but i do understand them, and i think that they will be a brilliant replacement for the ‘everyday’ A to B car once the tech and infrastructure gets closer to full maturity.
delta0 said:
Hydrogen in a fuel cell does make sense. One thing we need to get there is to have an abundance of renewable/carbon free energy production for it to work. Burning hydrogen in an ICE however is not viable. It still produces emissions like NOx, which it produces a lot of when burnt.
It does, but it's massively more efficient to use them at power station scales than in your car.Couple that with the ever-increasing levels of renewable electricity generation in the UK and other nations, it could be viable.
DriveSnowdonia said:
DonkeyApple said:
Hmmm. I'm afraid what's happened here is that you've been fed a little bit of information and disconnected from reality. Hence all the conspiracy stuff. The fervent need to believe is manifesting itself as a total belief that you understand everything while everyone else does not.
You are totally closed minded I'm afraid. I think we'll leave this here. Enjoy your shiny new unicorns. You'll be paying heavily for them in the years ahead no doubt.If you actually wanted to have a debate you wouldn't be endlessly citing the works of buffoons and charlatans that have been fed into your mind by social media algos, programming your to be their little sheep. Instead you would have come to the table with credible references that you had sourced as opposed to being uploaded into you.
It would be great to have some contra views and well thought out opinions on this thread but sadly that's not you. You are just programmed with the usual guff from the usual sources and have nothing of any intellectual merit to add.
DonkeyApple said:
It would be great to have some contra views and well thought out opinions on this thread but sadly that's not you.
There are no well thought out contra views on the basics of anthropogenic climate change any more than there well thought out contra views on how computer chips or combustion engines work, or on established scientific consensus that the Earth goes around the Sun rather than vice versa.It's not possible to completely rule out new science conclusively showing that the Sun orbits the (flat) Earth. And of course it is possible to make a superficially convincing argument for the Sun going around the Earth. After all, you can literally watch it appearing to do just that.
If the idea of the Sun going around the Earth for some reason fed into the wingnut world view, you'd get the same people who deny basic climate science denying that the Earth goes round the Sun. One can just imagine their triumphant derision - you can literally stand outside and watch the Sun going round the Earth, you solar-centric fools lapping up the mainstream media's lies!
There will always be this subset of idiots who feel empowered by taking the contrarian view. However, I do sense they are dwindling in number and influence.
GT9 said:
Rather than respond individually, here's my input following today's posting.
Total energy burden for e-fuels
The best (and only) input we got was 50% efficiency for electricity to efuel. Which put's the input energy for 300 TWh as 600 TWh. Other sources on the internet suggest up 30 kWh per litre, so for 30 billion litres, that's 900 TWh.
Heady stuff, let's call it 600 TWh for now because we are already going into outer space with these numbers.
That's in comparison to under 100 TWh for direct charging of the same number of EVs.
Battery shippings vs fuel shipping
Assuming worst case it's all imported stuff.
1.5 million new cars per annum, 500 kg battery (conservative) = 0.75 million tons per year of batteries.
Lets assume the same goes back overseas again each year for recycling, total 1.5 million tons.
E-fuel = 25 million tons. At least 15 time higher than the mass of batteries being shipped each year...
Electricity supply
Electricity and fossil fuel supply situation today:
Flow chart values are in TWh per annum, divide the numbers by 9 to get an approximate average continuous power in GW.
Total grid supply is 304 TWh or 33 GW.
Total transportation liquid fossil fuel supply is 421TWh, cars get 300 TWh of that.
Now it gets interesting, simply because you have to look at this flowchart in its entirety and decide how you are going to attack the whole lot in the best COMBINED strategy.
Which means you can't just decide how to deal with cars in isolation, something rarely if ever recognised in these conversations.
Fortunately the National Grid have already done that for us and produced a 250 page document to cover every aspect of it in fine detail. Who'd have thunk it....
They update the forecasting yearly, calling for input from every sector to collate it.
There are 4 scenarios chosen for both 2035 and 2050, depending on how successful the journey to net zero goes.
Rather than getting bogged down in the difference between the scenarios, let's just examine one of them for 2050 to see what is envisioned for the planned upgrades to the UK grid.
The reason for not bothering with the difference between scenarios is that all scenarios have the same outcome for cars, whereas things like home heating vary greatly depending on how far we get with removing the dependence on gas boilers.
Here is the 2050 scenario with the highest degree of cross-society electrification:
A fairly staggering threefold increases in total electricity supply.
Elimination of almost all natural gas consumption and all liquid fossil fuel consumption.
Replaced, in the main by offshore wind turbines.
Now we have all our energy homegrown AND renewable.
Cars get about 90 TWh (or 10 GW) of electricity for battery charging. That for around 30 million of them. And not one of them coal-powered....
This is what is ACTUALLY being planned and whilst it's not guaranteed to happen, it's a far cry from the 'hopes and dreams' of a few chaps on a motoring website that one day, in some far off land, there will be enough wind turbines or solar panels to produce 30 billion litres of carbon neutral fuel to be regular shipped to our hungry car engines.
Even the zaniest of our budding maths professors on here will struggle to present, straight-faced, a realistic scenario where we trade 90 TWh of local renewable generation for 600 TWh or more of off-shored electricity-to-fuel. That's potentially more than the entire UK National Grid supply in 2050.
SOURCE for flowcharts: National Grid FES 2022.
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263951/do...
By the way, the team responsible for producing the FES document is headed up by a PHer who is actively posting in the EV sub-forum. So if you don't like what you see, why not head over there and make yourself known.
Excellent postTotal energy burden for e-fuels
The best (and only) input we got was 50% efficiency for electricity to efuel. Which put's the input energy for 300 TWh as 600 TWh. Other sources on the internet suggest up 30 kWh per litre, so for 30 billion litres, that's 900 TWh.
Heady stuff, let's call it 600 TWh for now because we are already going into outer space with these numbers.
That's in comparison to under 100 TWh for direct charging of the same number of EVs.
Battery shippings vs fuel shipping
Assuming worst case it's all imported stuff.
1.5 million new cars per annum, 500 kg battery (conservative) = 0.75 million tons per year of batteries.
Lets assume the same goes back overseas again each year for recycling, total 1.5 million tons.
E-fuel = 25 million tons. At least 15 time higher than the mass of batteries being shipped each year...
Electricity supply
Electricity and fossil fuel supply situation today:
Flow chart values are in TWh per annum, divide the numbers by 9 to get an approximate average continuous power in GW.
Total grid supply is 304 TWh or 33 GW.
Total transportation liquid fossil fuel supply is 421TWh, cars get 300 TWh of that.
Now it gets interesting, simply because you have to look at this flowchart in its entirety and decide how you are going to attack the whole lot in the best COMBINED strategy.
Which means you can't just decide how to deal with cars in isolation, something rarely if ever recognised in these conversations.
Fortunately the National Grid have already done that for us and produced a 250 page document to cover every aspect of it in fine detail. Who'd have thunk it....
They update the forecasting yearly, calling for input from every sector to collate it.
There are 4 scenarios chosen for both 2035 and 2050, depending on how successful the journey to net zero goes.
Rather than getting bogged down in the difference between the scenarios, let's just examine one of them for 2050 to see what is envisioned for the planned upgrades to the UK grid.
The reason for not bothering with the difference between scenarios is that all scenarios have the same outcome for cars, whereas things like home heating vary greatly depending on how far we get with removing the dependence on gas boilers.
Here is the 2050 scenario with the highest degree of cross-society electrification:
A fairly staggering threefold increases in total electricity supply.
Elimination of almost all natural gas consumption and all liquid fossil fuel consumption.
Replaced, in the main by offshore wind turbines.
Now we have all our energy homegrown AND renewable.
Cars get about 90 TWh (or 10 GW) of electricity for battery charging. That for around 30 million of them. And not one of them coal-powered....
This is what is ACTUALLY being planned and whilst it's not guaranteed to happen, it's a far cry from the 'hopes and dreams' of a few chaps on a motoring website that one day, in some far off land, there will be enough wind turbines or solar panels to produce 30 billion litres of carbon neutral fuel to be regular shipped to our hungry car engines.
Even the zaniest of our budding maths professors on here will struggle to present, straight-faced, a realistic scenario where we trade 90 TWh of local renewable generation for 600 TWh or more of off-shored electricity-to-fuel. That's potentially more than the entire UK National Grid supply in 2050.
SOURCE for flowcharts: National Grid FES 2022.
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263951/do...
By the way, the team responsible for producing the FES document is headed up by a PHer who is actively posting in the EV sub-forum. So if you don't like what you see, why not head over there and make yourself known.
DriveSnowdonia said:
pheonix478 said:
Excellent post
But he's still not said how it's being funded and who will end up paying for all of this. Here's a clue, its you, the taxpayer and bill payer.DriveSnowdonia said:
I have posted some credible links and data over the previous pages. But funnily enough rather than debating on merit or otherwise you have simply decided to ignore them or chosen to downplay the data based on the messenger, based on your own pre-conceived bias, or play the usual 'conspiracy' card. Just waiting for you to play the 'racist' card for the full house. Same as ever with you people, playing the man because you are unable to play the game because not everyone chooses to play by your rules.
Oh and I have no obsession. I myself have just shy of 1/4 million invested in renewable equities. Have nearly as much invested in the oil industry too for balance. So no real bias from me in this race, just that I am prepared to face reality and to take what I am told by those in power with a large pinch of salt. Unlike you it seems.
You still haven't given any specific details of why you disagree with the prevailing and overwhelming scientific view on climate change and CO2 cause.Oh and I have no obsession. I myself have just shy of 1/4 million invested in renewable equities. Have nearly as much invested in the oil industry too for balance. So no real bias from me in this race, just that I am prepared to face reality and to take what I am told by those in power with a large pinch of salt. Unlike you it seems.
Linking to minority opposing views is not an explanation that could lead people to believe you understand the subject.
Without specific detailed knowledge and detailed explanation, there is NOTHING beyond "blind belief" in your views.
There is very little likelihood that your opinion will be taken seriously.
DriveSnowdonia said:
But he's still not said how it's being funded and who will end up paying for all of this. Here's a clue, its you, the taxpayer and bill payer.
So the same people who pay for everything then. Amazing insight. The question is which is cheaper; staying reliant on all our good friends in OPEC and Russia whilst ignoring the costs of potential (apparently likely) climate change or becoming self reliant in renewable and nuclear and changing up the mix of our transport energy use (for the better IMO) and potentially reducing the effects and costs of said climate change. Archie2050 said:
DriveSnowdonia said:
pheonix478 said:
Excellent post
But he's still not said how it's being funded and who will end up paying for all of this. Here's a clue, its you, the taxpayer and bill payer.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff