Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

michaels

It is not hard to make a case that the UK is responsible for my than 1% of global co2.

I believe the one percent is local production of the gas. Does it include co2 used by Britain's when they fly or when they are abroad? Does it include co2 in the shipping to the UK of all our imports? Does it include the co2 used to produce those imports of both goods and food?

Of course we can offset imports against exports and inwards visits against trips abroad but the structure of the economy with an overall trade deficit and a huge deficit in goods balanced mostly by a surplus in services almost certainly means that an awful lot of our embedded co2 has been exported.

Our share of world GDP is 2.25%, that would be my first approximation for our share of world co2 as well.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

It is not hard to make a case that the UK is responsible for my than 1% of global co2.

I believe the one percent is local production of the gas. Does it include co2 used by Britain's when they fly or when they are abroad? Does it include co2 in the shipping to the UK of all our imports? Does it include the co2 used to produce those imports of both goods and food?

Of course we can offset imports against exports and inwards visits against trips abroad but the structure of the economy with an overall trade deficit and a huge deficit in goods balanced mostly by a surplus in services almost certainly means that an awful lot of our embedded co2 has been exported.

Our heard of world GDP is 2.25%, that would be my first approximation for our share of world co2 as well.

I couldn't agree more.

Also I'm sure the UK was responsible annually for about 2% of CO2 emissions only a decade or so back. The drop from 2% to 1% will be partly due to lower energy consumption, and the displacement of coal by RE, but I suspect the main reason is that global emissions have grown.

The global growth is not however a criticism of other countries, such as China or India, since their per capita emissions are still less than ours, and it would be immoral of us to deny them a standard of living that we have enjoyed for decades.

As I said earlier, these countries with growing CO2 per capita, will never reach the levels that we did, and anything we can do to aid them is a benefit to us too. Our support for PV (and Germany / Italy did more) will be repaid in far greater value by CO2 that poor countries will never emit due to the reduction in technology costs, and their subsequent ability to deploy more PV, and sooner.

Martyn1981

Some times it helps when big issues become a little more real.

So here's Wales On-line and an article on flooding from Friday night:

Homes and businesses in Cardiff devastated by overnight flash floods

The cattery in the article is the one I volunteer at, and sadly a lot of my work flooring out the newer building (mentioned but not shown) got soaked, so spent a few hours pulling up carpets, boards and tarps, and trying to dry stuff out before the wood blows.

Basically we got hit by a torrential downpour of hail and rain, never seen anything so heavy, and the hail blocked up drains, water routes etc etc, so water found new routes, such as our porch, but that was nothing compared to my father's house about 400m away where water that a nearby road's drainage couldn't cope with, built up then crashed into a back garden two houses up, before smashing fences through my fathers garden and two more houses the other side. His house got flooded from the back to within about 3 feet of the front door. His fences are super strong concrete posts with wood effect reinforced concrete panels - two sets either side of the garden were smashed or pulled out of the ground. [The news pictures are not of my father's house nor his neighbours.]

So there's a little bit of AGW for you. And whilst I know that weather and climate are not the same, and extreme weather can happen, I think it's fair to say that having about a months worth of rain in 45mins, is not usual, and none of the infrastructure was able to cope.

But everyone's fine, and so are the cats, so could have been a lot worse, and hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to relay all the flooring at the rescue, though my Dad's house will probably take a bit longer.

silverwhistle

michaels wrote: »

It is not hard to make a case that the UK is responsible for my than 1% of global co2..

I agree. Saying that we aren't responsible and debating about the percentages we are (or more usually aren't) responsible for is like me saying that I shouldn't pay as much council tax because I've never had kids. You can probably all come up with your own examples.

When this subject touches on cars, whether ICE and BEV, it gets even worse and the strawman arguments fly around. Whilst it's no doubt fun and reassuring to have plenty of power on tap and makes longer journeys more comfortable, discussion of BHP, acceleration and bladder busting ranges seem to have no place in the realities of modern driving.

Interesting times: even Toyota are now accelerating their EV development plans. Hopefully the arguments about EV market choice and car specifications will diminish; never having been a petrol head I find them all a bit tiresome. I'd agree on some of the capital cost complaints, but then I'm retired, buy second hand and have a low mileage. If I were a company car driver I'd already be in an EV.

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

The current diesel is <5 secs to 60mph, awd, 50mpg & has 5 doors. The model 3 looks as if it may be a consideration in 18 months time if the maths work. Does that help?

I can’t think of any car maker that isn’t a risky investment at the moment. One that continually burns cash must be toward the top of that pile.

Hi

... and the make/model/price annual mileage & comparative running cost? - not to mention <cough> the real world CO2 & particulate emissions ... (yes that was an actual cough on behalf of anyone living in urban areas when unnecessarily/absurdly powerful diesel engines crawl by!) ...

There's a lot of engineering and cost difference between around 5 seconds on the 0-60 scale & a shade over 3 that you'd be looking at ... as mentioned, sub 5 seconds would save ~£10k with between 5&6 on a RWD model providing almost £20k saving ... I doubt that anyone not looking to book a track-day would ever use the full capabilities of any of the models (particularly the performance offering) on normal UK roads without wrapping themselves around something solid & pretty immoveable or ending up with a shedload of points or a requirement to complete a relaxation course!

Regarding burning cash ... some may see it that way, whilst others may recognise investment in whatever is required to deliver rapid organic expansion from scratch, including plant & machinery as opposed to simply investing in the basics of re-design & new model tooling where plant & machinery assets are at various stages of depreciation ... many companies are yet to invest serious sums in new capital assets to address their own EV strategies where others don't need to transition - that's the real difference which needs to be recognised & understood ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Hopefully the arguments about EV market choice and car specifications will diminish; never having been a petrol head I find them all a bit tiresome. I'd agree on some of the capital cost complaints, but then I'm retired, buy second hand and have a low mileage. If I were a company car driver I'd already be in an EV.

I agree, but would suggest BEV's win on this too. I was a petrol head, and going back 30yrs my first car was a 1981 V8 Trans-Am (hence my title), and the huge 'screaming chicken' emblem from the hood still adorns the wall in my spare room - it had to removed for a re-spray thanks to some kind soul depositing a bottle of brake fluid over my car the day after it won 'Best Firebird in S. Wales'.

But what that car taught me, and subsequent turbo-diesels my father had, is that it's torque not horespower that actually make driving enjoyable.

Not only do modern BEV's have excellent horsepower, but they have terrific torque, and unlike an ICE where the peak has to be 'found' at the rev sweetspot, then maintained by rowing through the gears, BEV's hit max torque from zero rpm's (slightly confusing terminology I admit), and torque peak is maintained till high speeds are achieved.

Plus as you and I know from the EV discussion thread, high mileage drivers such as the 50k pa insurance investor [edit - I meant investigator], already drive BEV's.

So BEV's win on power, torque, cost and the environment, somewhat undermining any arguments that a shift to BEV's carries a 'cost', when I believe they will deliver benefits and net cost reductions.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr Hammond.

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

... and the make/model/price annual mileage & comparative running cost? - not to mention <cough> the real world CO2 & particulate emissions ... (yes that was an actual cough on behalf of anyone living in urban areas when unnecessarily/absurdly powerful diesel engines crawl by!) ...

There's a lot of engineering and cost difference between around 5 seconds on the 0-60 scale & a shade over 3 that you'd be looking at ... as mentioned, sub 5 seconds would save ~£10k with between 5&6 on a RWD model providing almost £20k saving ... I doubt that anyone not looking to book a track-day would ever use the full capabilities of any of the models (particularly the performance offering) on normal UK roads without wrapping themselves around something solid & pretty immoveable or ending up with a shedload of points or a requirement to complete a relaxation course!

Regarding burning cash ... some may see it that way, whilst others may recognise investment in whatever is required to deliver rapid organic expansion from scratch, including plant & machinery as opposed to simply investing in the basics of re-design & new model tooling where plant & machinery assets are at various stages of depreciation ... many companies are yet to invest serious sums in new capital assets to address their own EV strategies where others don't need to transition - that's the real difference which needs to be recognised & understood ...

HTH
Z

4.6s is adequate but I wouldn't complain if the next ride could do it in 3.2s. I'd only ever consider a car with awd so the performance model is the only one in the frame at the moment. An occasional track day could be interesting as well....not been on one for a couple of years.

In the meantime, I'll continue driving my "absurdly powerful diesel" & enjoy it while I can.

silverwhistle

1961Nick wrote: »

4.6s is adequate.

Thank you for illustrating my point. There are few occasions on our public roads when using that performance is appropriate.



Some years ago when I was living in Italy I asked somewhere for opinions on a S/H Fabia I was thinking to buy. "Ooh, that engine isn't powerful enough for Italian roads" I was told. It's that sort of utter rubbish surrounding cars that is so childish and tiresome.


But I'd still argue the toss on cost though. That Fabia cost €4000 and I only sold it after 6 years as I was returning to the UK. Another £4000 on my Hyundai i20 which is still going strong after almost 6 years, fully ammortized and no need to change yet. Give it a few more years perhaps, but there is still no EV equivalent at anything near those prices.

Coastalwatch

Now here's a link to a worrying piece of news which shows that two nuclear plants have been taken offline and may even be taken out of service! Ok if Solar and Wind are allowed to take up the slack, the sensible option, but not if the powers that be continue to rely on FF's.

Solar must be allowed into CfD to help fill possible power gap

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) report suggests that the UK will potentially see a power gap emerge due to development of two new nuclear power plants being halted, as well as cracking occurring in the graphite reactor cores of two existing plants.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if this all brought about a government U turn on it's current round of renewable energy bashing.


https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/list

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

4.6s is adequate but I wouldn't complain if the next ride could do it in 3.2s. I'd only ever consider a car with awd so the performance model is the only one in the frame at the moment. An occasional track day could be interesting as well....not been on one for a couple of years.

In the meantime, I'll continue driving my "absurdly powerful diesel" & enjoy it while I can.

Hi

I really don't follow, the middle spec price car I've mentioned a number of times is the long range dual motor variant at around £50k ... dual motor gives you the AWD you're looking for ... 4.8seconds to 60 with a range of around 330miles.

That represents a price which is pretty much in line with a fully loaded Golf-R 2 litre (so as to compare specs on a more level playing field) as well as offerings from BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc .... apart from technology that is! ...

Then again, if the performance decision is based on standing out from the crowd ... don't a lot of people people point at Tesla's as they pass by, whilst having little interest in a run-of-the-mill mass market manufacturer car, no matter what badge it may have on the rear end?

HTH
Z