Petrol Price Review: OFT and Graham_Devon join forces

thor

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Being "sustainable" is meaningless, we didn't end the iron age by running out of iron! The vast majority of the world's surface hasn't been explored for oil and thanks to the modern wonders of horizontal-fracking natural gas is going to become an economically viable alternative in the next 5-10 years (it already is in heavy trucks and buses).

sustainable means long term. These new sources of fossil fuels may last your lifetime but I doubt the next generation or the generation after them will get much use out of them. We need nuclear fusion NOW!

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

There should be a mechanism where the level of taxation is adjusted up or down to match the fluctuations in the price of oil, providing some stability to the cost of fuel. There is an element of profiteering on the governments part because when fuel prices go up, so does their tax revenue from it. They could just forego this additional revenue and help out the nations motorists.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

thor wrote: »

sustainable means long term. These new sources of fossil fuels may last your lifetime but I doubt the next generation or the generation after them will get much use out of them. We need nuclear fusion NOW!

Nuclear fusion is a pipedream, they'll never get it working commercially if they worked on it for another 300 years. We need investment in technology we already have and that already works. Nuclear fission reactors used to provide hydrogen fuel. The likes of Saudi and other sun rich nations can use solar to create hydrogen, Iceland and other volcanically active countries can use geothermal to create hydrogen and China can use hydro electricity to create hydrogen.

JonnyBravo

thor wrote: »

We need nuclear fusion NOW!

Is that how it works?
Hang on.

We need personal teleportation and monkey tennis NOW!


Ummm....





Drat.

thor

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Is that how it works?
Hang on.

We need personal teleportation and monkey tennis NOW!


Ummm....




Drat.

That was my point. We need it now but won't be getting it anytime soon. Who knows though? Maybe someone will come across a breakthrough and fusion becomes viable within the next century?

thor

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Nuclear fusion is a pipedream, they'll never get it working commercially if they worked on it for another 300 years. We need investment in technology we already have and that already works. Nuclear fusion reactors used to provide hydrogen fuel.

I'm sorry I don't get this bit.
I do agree with your sentiments about investing in fossil fuel alternatives though.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

thor wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get this bit.
I do agree with your sentiments about investing in fossil fuel alternatives though.

Sorry, that should be 'fission' not 'fusion'.

Idiophreak

N1AK wrote: »

A tax on fuel encourages people to buy more efficient cars and potentially walk once in a while; ultimately it encourages more sustainable behaviour, which is about as useful as a tax can be.

Sorry, but *discouraging* motoring and *encouraging* "sustainable behaviour" are simply not the same thing.

When people say stuff like this, I'm always curious as to whether they're actually don't know the difference themselves, or whether they're just so desperate to put a positive spin on something they just cross their fingers and hope nobody notices...

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Idiophreak wrote: »

Sorry, but *discouraging* motoring and *encouraging* "sustainable behaviour" are simply not the same thing.

When people say stuff like this, I'm always curious as to whether they're actually don't know the difference themselves, or whether they're just so desperate to put a positive spin on something they just cross their fingers and hope nobody notices...

What's annoying is when the government brought in the new car tax payments to discourage people from buying less fuel efficient cars, they made it retrospective. This not only means that they are punishing people who bought their cars before the new tax 'incentive' was brought in, they are also discouraging other people from buying these less efficient cars second hand. Which on paper sounds great because you get a lot of fuel inefficient cars off the road. In practice these cars have already been manufactured and so have a huge amount of embodied energy that is wasted when they are scrapped before the end of their mechanical life.

It's as shortsighted as knocking down older houses to make way for new more efficient ones. The new houses will take decades, if ever, to recoup the embodied energy wasted in the older houses.

shortchanged_2

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

What's annoying is when the government brought in the new car tax payments to discourage people from buying less fuel efficient cars, they made it retrospective. This not only means that they are punishing people who bought their cars before the new tax 'incentive' was brought in, they are also discouraging other people from buying these less efficient cars second hand. Which on paper sounds great because you get a lot of fuel inefficient cars off the road. In practice these cars have already been manufactured and so have a huge amount of embodied energy that is wasted when they are scrapped before the end of their mechanical life.

It's as shortsighted as knocking down older houses to make way for new more efficient ones. The new houses will take decades, if ever, to recoup the embodied energy wasted in the older houses.

I'm glad somebody on here is concerned about the environment, because since renoman has been PPR'd there certainly seems to be a lack of concern about the environment.