But increasingly, a large proportion of that energy isn't produced from a chemical process so the 30% is irrelevant. Also, (lower) sustainable energy lost through electricity distribution does not in itself add to the carbon equation. When the blanket resistance to capturing tidal energy subsides, much of the argument justifying the generation of base load power from fossil fuels will fade, and unltimately, the global addiction to oil will moderate.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why The Obsession With Electric cars?
- Thread starter LOL The Irony
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
but non fossil power does create C02, from the manufacture and installation of wind turbines - notably their massive concrete bases (1) and making of stuff like batteries and solar panels which use rare minerals which use large amounts of energy to extract.
And a lot of this generating capacity is not where the old baseload power stations were so needing big changes to the distribution system. more C02 doing that.
tha get nowt fer nowt, mate.
Similarly, it also takes rather a lot of CO2 to get fossil fuels out of the ground, transport them and refine them, on top of which is all the CO2 involved in the construction necessary to build the plants to refine and burn them.
Some of the new (gas) generation capacity is much closer to the loads although we still have occasions where National Grid are unable to accept all the power thrown at it in certain areas and we pay generators not to generate. Dinorwig was built to store ( and change from store to output and v.v. very quickly) and has about 5 hrs at full smoke, it worked well when it could absorb the output of Wylva overnight and put it out in the evening peak, currently the pricing framework means that short term balancing is profitable just like the middle classes will be able to do with their car batteries.
Ps is the half hour by hour wholesale price visible anywhere?
Ps is the half hour by hour wholesale price visible anywhere?
The life of transmission equipment is much longer than generating kit so as Bald Rick says, the fossil route has much the same carbon cost in construction in addition to the perpetual impact of CO2 and pollutants that renewables don't. Not only do power stations have large construction impacts, but they are also the cause of much of the oil/gas industry's transportation infrastructure including ships, rail and large pipelines. The only wind that doesn't deliver itself is from windbag politicans. Renewable energy technology has been cracked, storage is the next frontier, including that stored in private vehicles.
Last edited:
My point was not that local charging is impossible, but that there are far more problems to be solved than many EV advocates seem to think. As I said, EVs can work well at the moment - but only while few people are using them. As numbers increase, extensive strengthening of local power distribution would be needed, for example my lights dim when I use a 7.5kW shower - I'm told the voltage drop is within spec but it would not be if I stuck another 10-20kW of car charging on top (and my neighbours did too).
For local charging, charging points would need to be provided every few yards along most residential streets (even in the outer suburbs there are more cars than driveways). Expect city roads to be dug up for years ahead.
My further point was all that could all be avoided by having battery exchange stations, presumably at existing "petrol stations", where mechanised exchange could take place in a couple of minutes - like refuelling now. Then only those exchange stations would need to have an upgraded electricity supply and you won't need charging posts along the streets, although you could still have one on your driveway if you want. Car makers need to standardise on batteries.
It will still be burned. The price will go down and countries like China, India and in Africa will use it cheerfully (with less care about limiting emissions, no doubt) while Western nations beat themselve up with self-hate. China is still building coal-fired power stations :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45640706
The real issue is rising world population (doubled since 1970, two generations, less than a lifetime, and no sign of slowing), the elephant in the room which it seems to be bad form to point out.
http://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=ik8fpv
At 0900 this morning the price was nearly £140/MWh. Yesterday lunchtime it was £37.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
They took the wrong tack with electric cars - they should have put conductive ceiling mesh above our streets then we could all have had one of these making electric cars more fun.....
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/333089185915
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/333089185915
That would be excellent ...
Instead of mesh though, install a single wire catenary along all the roads, you could get NR (Network Road) to install it (eventually)
edwin_m
Veteran Member
However one way of increasing range might be to have "structural batteries" which are shaped and designed to withstand loads so the battery is actually also the vehicle body. This would be incompatible with swappable batteries.
Read something recently that suggests this might cease rising more quickly than expected. Improvements in healthcare lead to greater numbers of children surviving per couple, but as this becomes understood the birth rate tends to go down over time. Also urbanisation reduces the benefit of having many children.
Have I ever mentioned my plan for intercity roller coasters? That's how to get people out of the cars!
DavidGrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,365
I don't like the sudden up and down movements so could we make them a level as possible with only minor gradients. Oh that's a railway!!!
Yes there are problems, but soon, all of those problems will be overshadowed by the big problem, i.e. the earth's temperature will have reached/passed the point of no return where the sheer horror of the consequences will drive the worlds responsible powers to act. So whoever represents the UK at such a forum would not get much sway in arguing that because some UK residents want to drive everywhere but as there isn't a convenient charging point everywhere that they want to go the capping of carbon emissions should be put back a few years. That argument would be up against those speaking for nations who might be suffering from rising sea levels, or extended droughts etc.. The UK, and other nations that have procrastinated over their preparations, will be forced by international concensus to fix their emissions. How they do it will be their problem.
That might ba a partial solution, but it would need to get a buy-in from the vehicle manufacturers (which responds to global demands, - the UK doesn't have any indiginous vehicle makers) and what might be convenient here wouldn't be suitable for many larger countries or where the climate is much hotter or colder.
See above, at the eleventh hour, all the major powers will have to work together, - even the US will need to heed the warnings, (presumably there wont be a Trump mentality President in the White House forever!) China will also need to clean its act up otherwise it's position as 2nd largest economic power may be threatened. Short term, the smaller African nations probably represent the biggest threat, but if they persist in polluting and diminishing the effort to reduce climate change, they will find that they don't have any trading partners.
China tried to reduce it's population growth by brutal legislation and despite the social unrest that it caused, their birthrate is below that of the US (0.6% vs 0.7%). In terms of energy use, the per capita figures of energy show that the US uses three times that of China and twice that of the UK. Apart from the Arab oil producers, most are far lower than the US. So a birth in the US costs the planet's climate a lot more than one in China. Blaming the birth rate is very convenient for developed nations because they generally aren't implicated with such a false dichotomy. Try loading it with GDP and see the league table.
I would believe all the global warming stuff if the green taxes had been offset by drops in other taxes. But they weren't, were they? It was just a money grab from governments. The same governments who pay the scientists to provide evidence that global warming is real. And who will then provide the evidence their paymasters want. Maybe that is why global warming scientists have been caught fiddling the numbers - to keep the income coming.
I believe that pollutants from burning fossil fuels can cause problems in cities where the concentrations can be high. But cities have decent public transport (tho more park and ride is needed). In the country people have to travel long distances and there is no decent public transport, nor could it be viable in remote areas because there is not enough demand.
My nearest hospital is 20 miles away. Large supermarket, 14 miles. My friend has to travel 45 miles to see his oncologist in a large city, and he is in pain with cancer, so train and bus not an option.
loads of townies with no idea how it works outside the cities trying to dictate how we travel.
I believe that pollutants from burning fossil fuels can cause problems in cities where the concentrations can be high. But cities have decent public transport (tho more park and ride is needed). In the country people have to travel long distances and there is no decent public transport, nor could it be viable in remote areas because there is not enough demand.
My nearest hospital is 20 miles away. Large supermarket, 14 miles. My friend has to travel 45 miles to see his oncologist in a large city, and he is in pain with cancer, so train and bus not an option.
loads of townies with no idea how it works outside the cities trying to dictate how we travel.
Do I believe in man made global warming? Yes.
Do I believe Governments are taking advantage of it to make more money? Yes.
A lot of what we do won't make much difference if the people at the top don't do the right things. A bit like giving to a charity that sends money abroad only to be used to buy arms and kill people.
We can of course all do our bits, but some can do more than others. Take the above example as one of many reasons why not everyone can give up their car. Hence, those that can, should. And not then moan that others are keeping theirs. It's not a point scoring exercise.
Do I believe Governments are taking advantage of it to make more money? Yes.
A lot of what we do won't make much difference if the people at the top don't do the right things. A bit like giving to a charity that sends money abroad only to be used to buy arms and kill people.
We can of course all do our bits, but some can do more than others. Take the above example as one of many reasons why not everyone can give up their car. Hence, those that can, should. And not then moan that others are keeping theirs. It's not a point scoring exercise.
I agree with that. I'm sure that most members of this forum know somebody that has a genuine need to travel outside what public transport currently offers. That includes taxis, post buses (if they still exist) and ambulances. As you stated upthread, there is an opportunity to invest in (electric) bus services. That would provide a baseline service so that most would be able to travel at times where private transport and taxis are currently the only option. For those that for health or other genuine reasons, cannot manage with public transport, subsidised taxis and of course ambulances would be available, plus of course there will be some whose friends and relatives have their own electric cars. That won't be this year, next year or even in the 2020s but as the pressure of what will become a national responsibility to reduce all non-essential carbon generation increases, measures will be introduced in legislation. Who ten years ago would have expected the recent announcement about no new houses with gas heating? The next thing will be banning log burners in towns, a bit like the 1956 Clean Air Act which banned non-smokeless fuel.
I also agree that governments see the forthcoming legislation as a way of collecting more tax, but as we've both said, additional subsidised buses in rural areas are a good idea, however, they will soak some of that additional tax up and there will be plenty more to pay for. It's the price that the population will have to pay for its and previous generation's profligacy with fossil fuels. The longer it is delayed, the worse it will be.
And no I am not anti-car per se, but the damage that they have and are continuing to cause means something has got to give. Only the committed climate change deniers don't understand that situation.
Yes, but that looks like a petrol can on the passenger seat and it does not have a collector pole. Sure it's not a hybrid dodgem car?
Except they were. Just not announced as such. There has been a significant reduction in income related taxes in the last 30 years particularly for those at lower income levels.
So what happens if someone moves to the middle of nowhere, deliberately depriving themselves of public transport?
Then they can have a good moan on fora like this.
But they will have the last laugh, because they will be allowed a car unlike city dwellers.
If they can drive.
... and they won't be allowed to come into a clean city with a polluting vehicle. Park and ride from a field on the outskirts, - electric bus of course!
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
I take it you never rode the A60s during the poor stock and track maintenance era - there was a letter to the Standard complaining that if he wanted that kind of ride he'd have gone to Thorpe Park.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
Yes, but that looks like a petrol can on the passenger seat and it does not have a collector pole. Sure it's not a hybrid dodgem car?
Indeed it does... shoud have gone for the more classic image
https://www.bing.com/images/search?...ars&selectedindex=0&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6
Cars should generally be kept out of cities altogether - electric and fossil powered.
That's a good point. However, many places had a semi-decent bus service until the last 4 or 5 years where cuts in subsidies as cut buses all over, including evenings and weekends.
So there's also the case of what if someone moves somewhere, with the intention of using public transport, only to have it axed within a few years?
At least with trains, you're unlikely to find yourself with no trains or the station closing. Near me, we've had loads of buses cut, with Sunday services mostly running only if they pass a hospital (and therefore get funding). My local bus station is now closed and used by residents as a car park, or for kids to use as a skate park.
But you'd presumably allow taxis or the disabled.. and if the latter, you'd expect plenty of false applications for a blue badge...
- Status