You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yup, agree with TJ and Trimix. Anyone choosing to have kids now really need to consider what you’re going to cause them to live through
This is one of the reasons that I don't want kids. Don't want that responsibility and thought hanging on my shoulders.
We could pay people to cycle
This pisses me off.
Being self employed, if I jump in my van I can give the fuel and other receipts to the taxman and can "save" money. Even employees here in Germany can deduct their travel from their yearly tax return. The further away from work you live, the more affordable commuting by car becomes.
However, if I cycle to work there is no financial benefit.
Backwards thinking.
This sort of shit needs to change to encourage folks to use their cars less and/or live closer to their places of work.
Also, why do I pay 500€/year tax for my work van, that I essentially cannot do without given the nature of my job (carpenter), yet the guy with his 450bhp hybrid BMW pays zilch? Who the hell needs that much power?
Isn't it Portugal where they have no road tax. Instead you pay tax on the fuel used by your car. Drive more, pay more. Big, powerful gas guzzler, pay more. Small efficient car, pay less.
That all makes me sound like a crazed petrol head, but I'm not. I would love to see car usage killed off and have at least 50% of the roads turned over to bike lanes, with the only motors on the road being lorries, trades people and others that do not have an alternative to using an oil burner.
Yeah, this kind of shit has to stop, pears grown in China, shipped to South America to be packaged and shipped to the UK for sale, when pears will grow in this country…madness
And that is exactly the kind of thing that will not be stopped by all the newest environmental legislation. We will all be driving EVs and not going on holiday abroad, and instead watching Netflix on our 70" TVs or smartphones to "save the planet", all while importing everything from 1000's of miles away, and forgetting just how much energy was expended in the process.
There's a finite amount of oil. We will certainly use it all - why not encourage everyone to get 1mpg gas guzzlers, then we can all move on quicker??
There’s a finite amount of oil. We will certainly use it all – why not encourage everyone to get 1mpg gas guzzlers, then we can all move on quicker??
Because that doesn't make money for shareholders and Big Oil. Back in the 80's, oil companies were doing research into global warming, they knew pretty well what was happening and the argument was that the melting ice in the Arctic would open up vast new drilling areas.
The thing is, you don't really need much technology to fix the issues. Mandatory solar panels on all new builds. Car parks to have green/solar roofs to them, not just a vast open expanse of tarmac. Proper segregated cycle infrastructure and progressive measures to reduce and then remove car usage. Increased investment in public transport, especially electric/hybrid/hydrogen buses and trains. Progressive electrification of the rail network.
The answer is fewer vehicles, not newer vehicles.
Because that doesn’t make money for shareholders and Big Oil.
How does it not? It would be a profit bonanza, in the short term, and that's all people care about.
Mandatory solar panels on all new builds.
But where would we get them from??
I'm also very unconvinced by the total lifecycle benefits of solar panels. They use a lot of scarce resources and energy to manufacture (the energy currently being provided by brown coal), and produce a lot of complext waste. The simple solution - use less electricity!
there is no such thing as a sustainable biofuel – we need that land to grow food not to grow plants to make fuel
And here in is a lack of education. It's not your fualt, the industry hasn't done enough to educate everyone as its a complex issue. So to answer this point - Bio -does not always = land crop! The term bio is being inter-woven with waste feedstocks like the left overs from farming, leftovers from paper and timber industries, left over from food and it's processing - i.e. the stuff that currenly gets buried and causes methane (which is 10x as bad as co2). It's also being used alongside Carbon Capture, either direct or indirect. So no TJ you are wrong and it's not a greenwashing exercise.
You do make a valid point around energy usage as whole, but by reducing our reliance on energy, from whatever source that is, you push back progress. I can here you say killing the planet isn't progress - i agree it's not, anyone would be foolish to think that - but by remaining stationary in our evolution you are saying that today (or maybe a few yars ago) was the point in time when we should no longer have been pushing forward/ advancing as a human race technologically..
– Bio -does not always = land crop! The term bio is being inter-woven with waste feedstocks like the left overs from farming, leftovers from paper and timber industries, left over from food and it’s processing
Just how much energy is available from those sources? I have no idea, but I strongly suspect it's a drop in the ocean compared to the demand. Also, will there be any left over, after the "bio-mass" electricty plants have been fed? (although, that's less of an issue, as we currently import virgin timber from the US to burn at Drax, because the CO2 maths apparently checks out).
It's still greenwashing. The vast majority of "bio-" fuels come from virgin sources, including clear-cut rainforest and virgin old-growth forests in the US. It's not an "education" issue.
TJ is right - the issue is energy consumption.
We have arrived at this point because selfishness for our clan, tribe, family, country, way of life, religion, politics, has enabled us to out compete our rivals for limited recourses.
Its how we have evolved to our current point, its what has forced evolution. Bit like the arms race or the space race or any sporting race - it forced / demands change in one direction.
This direction is at the expense of the environment.
The industrial revolution came about largely because the price of labour went up as it became short due to disease and previous pandemics.
There are some great ideas on this thread, but sadly we are the rich minority who can afford to think about them. Most of the population doesn't have clean water or proper food, we are moaning about importing the bloody stuff. Soon, most of them will be walking north to avoid the heat.
I see no government being bold enough to force the changes needed - they know what's needed, what they don't know is how to get elected if they promise them.
I see no business being able to do more than react to current demand and legislation while making a profit. Most businesses are essentially driven to make short term profits - banks / investors demand a short term return. We all demand a pay rise.
We have no hope of changing politics short of a revolution, but look where the Middle East is following their spring of doing that, or Hong Kong for example.
We may be able to alter some businesses by altering demand, but we wont be able to alter the short term requirement for profit. That has to come from legislation - which is very unlikely to happen.
Even our own lives are short term - most of us are just thinking about our summer holidays and how inconvenient it is that we cant fly somewhere. Faced with the reality of being powerless and the problems requiring global solutions which are quite complex and interconnected, the natural reaction is to say "Sod it, I'm just going to ignore it" or place your hope on technology or government or business. That natural but a foolish cop-out. Might as well pray to the bloke who lives in the sky.
We can lower the burden going forwards by having less offspring though. Oh, and ride our bikes more (provided they are not carbon frames flown over from the Far East 🙂
Just how much energy is available from those sources?
A significant amount, though you have to consider what is the best outlet for it. For land based Transport there is enough, even if you do remove land crop where it is sensitive. We're ging to continue to eat, manufacture and waste so there will always be feedstocks - yes we do need efficencies as we've grown up knowing we had an almost unlimited source of fuel in the ground.
The vast majority of “bio-” fuels come from virgin sources, including clear-cut rainforest
this is cetianly not the case in every country, but appreciateive that it does have it's issues in some. Jowever , suggesting that you don't want to use land mass to produce any fuels is ironic, as that's what we've done since man discovered fire and we would need someway of producing energy otherwsie we would not be able to argue on STW!
For avaiation and Marine, no there isn't enough, but there can be - but this needs other technologies that are predominatly being championed like "eFuels" from Co2 capture - some Marine is also looking at rubber and plastic waste as there is a lot of this, and will continue to be so for many years.
there always seems to be this notion that it's all or nothing, and if i can't have all now then i don't want it - except electric - why is that what has lead us to believe this is the only route to fix all of our problems?
twrch - i didn't disagree with TJ on a reduction on reliance on energy - but you havent said whether you would be happy for tus all to stop what we do today - do you still want to ride your bike, use your phone etc etc..??? if the answer is no to any of those, then you have to accept that energy demand will continue to rise, so you then have to accept that multiple technologies are needed in order to meet the demand without putting further pressure on the environment.
A significant amount,
How much is that?? We need numbers, not platitudes.
For land based Transport there is enough
You're telling me that the UK produces enough waste biomass to fuel its transport needs?
A hectare of arable land can produce 200 litres of biodiesel per year. The UK has 6 million hectares of arable land. It also uses 40 BILLION liters of fuel per year. So, if we give up all of our arable land to fuel production, AND cut our motorised transport usage to 1/50th of what it is now, as well as not eat or heat our homes, then that would be sustainable.
That's the problem with the numbers, they immediately expose greenwashing.
do you still want to ride your bike, use your phone etc etc..???
I don't have a smartphone, and my cycling is powered by porridge.
but you havent said whether you would be happy for tus all to stop what we do today – if the answer is no to any of those, then you have to accept that energy demand will continue to rise
The idea that it is remotely feasible to manufacture smartphones (and every other gadget, for that matter) for the world from sustainable energy sources is just ludicrous. If you want to be "sustainable", you have to accept that our energy demands have to decrease.
The idea that it is remotely feasible to manufacture smartphones (and every other gadget, for that matter) for the world from sustainable energy sources is just ludicrous. If you want to be “sustainable”, you have to accept that our energy demands have to decrease
that is my point -you cant do everything sustainable if you go to the nth degree and look at other environmental imapcts.
do you still want to ride your bike, use your phone etc etc..???
I don’t have a smartphone, and my cycling is powered by porridge.
that was more aimed at what your bike is made from!
I appreciate you want absolute numbers, i don;t have them to hand, but the 40billion litres covers a lot of applciations, and my point ive made is you need to target certain applications with what is availble.
That’s the problem with the numbers, they immediately expose greenwashing.
Like it
i don;t have them to hand, but the 40billion litres covers a lot of applciations, and my point ive made is you need to target certain applications with what is availble.
thats the point What is available and what can be done without significant lifestyle changes is a mere drop in the ocean.
hen you have to accept that energy demand will continue to rise, so you then have to accept that multiple technologies are needed in order to meet the demand without putting further pressure on the environment.
It just doesn't work like that. Energy usage is proportional to greenhouse gas emmissions More energy usage = more greenhouse gases
You cannot increase energy usage without increasing pressure on the environment
For the love of God TJ stop saying 'it's very simple'. It's anything but, in any kind of useful practical sense.
You then went on to say
The only answer is deep and fundamental changes in how we live our lives.
On which plane of reality is that 'very simple' ?
Of course the game changer in this would be nuclear fusion generation. shame its been 25 years in the future for the last 50 years and still is.
If we can get fusion actually producing electricity on a mass scale it changes the whole equation but 25 years time is too late
On which plane of reality is that ‘very simple’ ?
The essence / concept of the solution is simple. It really is. Use less energy and consume less.
the plane of reality where you understand the issues. Everything else is obfuscation and lack of understanding.
Its about how you look at problems. Implementation can be difficult but the concept is simple. simple does not mean easy.
How does someone get pregnant - thats really simple. the mechanics of it tho are horrendously complicated
Ooh this is fun but i am off to walk to a local cafe where i will be consuming locally produced food prepared by people who live locally and that uses reusable cutlery and crockery and that composts / recycles all their waste
Also, if you really want to sound like a total nob, and get everyone arguing against you even if they are on your side, this kind of comment is ideal.
You worked for the state all your life, I assume? Paid out of taxes gathered by taxing industries that used lots of fossil fuels. You can't play the 'holier than thou' card nor should you - it's not a dick waving competition. And trying to make it into one is REALLY damaging for the cause you are trying to promote.
The topic of the thread has widened from the original point of the Transport Decarbonisation Plan (which isn't a bad thing) but it's broadly the same themes.
The TDP makes a load of broad brush, "kicking the can down the road" statements about technology, as though miraculously switching everything to EV will change anything (which a, it won't and b, it'll take decades to achieve that switch anyway) but it's basically the same as the Transport Plan (in as much as there's ever been a coherent plan) has been doing for the last few decades which is add another road, add another lane, ease congestion, boost the economy, add another out-of-town place.
it's the Jevons Paradox in full effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Same in all areas of life - it's more efficient to work from home so there's more demand for monitors and broadband and all the related trappings of home working so there's a corresponding increase in demand for all that stuff.
Seeking the answer in woolly terms of "efficiency" and "technology" will never give you the right answer, it simply shifts the consumption.
The essence / concepot of the solution is simple. It really is
Only in a totally meaningless sense, the same way that the solution to being poor is to be richer.
MOlgrips - you missed the joke there which was that that comment was posted up after squirrelking posted an attempt at a humorous takedown
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Or can you really not see the issues?
Oh - and nob = member of the nobility. I guess you mean knob - the end of a bell 🙂 🙂
The simple point is that to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the only way to do it is to reduce energy usage
Once you understand that simple fact then you can drive towards solutions. Untill you understand that it is that simple then you cannot even see solutions
You cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly without reducing energy usage.
calling it complex is to excuse inaction
with that - I'm out
that is my point -you cant do everything sustainable if you go to the nth degree and look at other environmental imapcts.
I'm not talking about the "other environmental impacts", I'm talking about the energy required to manufacture things. It seems our education has missed the fact that modern electronics take an absolutely enormous amount of energy to manufacture - the example I gave above was that it takes 1.5MWh to manufacture one laptop, or the energy required to drive 5000 miles. Where is that energy going to come from?
Another example - it takes about 60MWh to manufacture an EV. In 2020, renewable power in the UK provided 120TWh, which is enough to make about 2 million EVs per year if we do nothing else at all "sustainably" (like make anything else, charge those EVs, watch TV, put the kettle on, etc etc).
That's why, for me, it always comes back to energy usage. We really don't comprehend just how much we use every day in the course of our Western lifestyles, and just how little energy is available outside of fossil fuels or nuclear.
This is why I mostly get annoyed with this topic - the only remotely "sustainable" solutions are 1. give up our Western lifestyle or 2. go 100% nuclear power, and don't bother with solar panels and all that guff.
In my opinion, anything else is greenwashing, and generally seems designed to enrich a select group of people.
that was more aimed at what your bike is made from!
My bike is made from approx. 20lb of steel, which takes about 55kwh to manufacture. Or the energy needed to drive a car about 200 miles.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Or can you really not see the issues?
I can see the same issues as you and apparently a whole load more.
don’t bother with solar panels and all that guff.
Why not?
with that – I’m out
50p says you're posting on this thread in under an hour...
All i am getting from some posters here is that we need to reduce the population and stop using energy, neither of which are going to happen any time soon.
Beyond that we need to look at solutions that can be used to reduce and eliminate emissions, so to give a broad brush response of calling it greenwashing when these things can make a difference just makes you look like a dick.
We all need to make changes there is no doubt including reduction of energy use, but to boil it all down to say the answer is simple ignores outright the complexity of living in this world.
We will get there as fundamentally we have to, and all the small changes are important - to say otherwise is disrespectful of people who are trying and is frankly just depressing as it shows a sad mindset of those who don't think there is any hope
Energy usage is proportional to greenhouse gas emmissions
simply not true - you're suggesting that things like geothermals and hydro contribute to greenhouse gas? production of components will, but propotrtionally insignificnat.
2. go 100% nuclear power,
HUGE HUGE HUGE amounts of Co2 involved and compeletely ignores the waste from it as well - dont forget what you do with spent fuel rods (as well as batteries)
My bike is made from approx. 20lb of steel, which takes about 55kwh to manufacture. Or the energy needed to drive a car about 200 miles.
tyres, brake pads, saddle, etc etc...?? very doubtful on the 55kwh figure - is this from mining, through smelting, through to forming, through to welding etc...?
don’t bother with solar panels and all that guff.
Why not?
In the scenario I presented, we go 100% nuclear power. What is the point in using energy to manufacture more short-lived electronic items (that is, solar panels), that produce a relatively minuscule amount of energy and make a lot of landfill?
HUGE HUGE HUGE amounts of Co2 involved
Sure, there's some CO2 involved in the construction of the reactor building, but that's the same as any other comparable industrial building. The only additional CO2 cost is mining and refining the uranium, but the ultimate CO2 cost per unit of electricity is comparable to other sources.
and compeletely ignores the waste from it as well – dont forget what you do with spent fuel rods (as well as batteries)
The disposal is an issue, but absolutely not impossible. After all, EVs are sold to us on the premise that "we'll solve the lithium recycling problem soon!".
Also - what batteries? No batteries needed, unlike intermittent sources! The only way that the UK grid can handle all the intermittent sources now, without truly enormous batteries, is that we throttle our gas plants much more often than before, as well as building new gas peaking plants.
tyres, brake pads, saddle, etc etc…?? very doubtful on the 55kwh figure – is this from mining, through smelting, through to forming, through to welding etc…?
Yes. I used a relatively standard figure of 20MJ/kg (or 5.5kwh/kg) for steel. Bicycle brake pads, saddles, etc, not only weigh practically nothing, but are made of materials with a much lower energy requirement again.
You also can't tell me you're concerned about my bicycle, which I ride 1000's of mile per year to work and other essential trips, and ignore the 100's of kwh used to manufacture your smartphone and TV that I'm sure is used for all sorts of non-essential purposes, or the approx. 10MWh needed to manufacture an EV battery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy
Hope your bicycle isn't aluminum!
We should all have a decent understanding of embodied energy before having a discussion about sustainability. Semiconductor devices have about the highest amount of embodied energy, and if we are at all concerned about CO2 emissions, we should be trying to work out how to power the manufacture of the TVs, laptops, computers, data centers, phones, and touchscreens we all apparently need. Instead, we are crippling our own industries with environmental regulations, congratulating ourselves that we are saving the planet, and buying huge amounts of electronic goods from Asia. China has maybe 200 years of brown coal reserves, and will happily burn it to manufacture everything we won't.
All i am getting from some posters here is that we need to reduce the population and stop using energy, neither of which are going to happen any time soon.
Sorry, wasn't my intention. My point here is that most of what we are being fed as "environmentally sustainable" barely does any good at all, and that if someone really is concerned about this, there are much better things to do. Eg - I rarely buy anything new, I absolutely minimise the number of electronic items I own (due to the huge amount of energy required to make them, as well as the associated pollution issues), I cycle to work as often as I can, and keep my house pretty cold. None of that is too hard to do and will cause your existence to be dramatically more sustainable. It just won't make anyone rich.
and keep my house pretty cold
You do know that this kills people, right? about 5-8 thousand people die every year in the UK because their houses are too cold. I guess this is what some folk are saying when they say the "reduce consumption" is such a simplistic argument. So when you say "it will make your life dramatically more sustainable" for some folks, it won't be sustainable at all, in fact will have the opposite effect
Twrch - OK that's fair enough, individually i agree they won't make much difference but this is where we have to stay looking as a collective in addition to the increasingly needed rules that will come.
The coming changes are going to cost a lot and cause a huge amount of change which needs to ensure that the less well off are supported around the world.
I just hope that it can be done for everyone's sakes
Technology will not save us. There is nothing that will save us. However, that's as is should be as we're not worth saving.
I have a radical solution, move all the rich people that pay for heat from the northern hemisphere to the warm southern hemisphere, they can take all their money, businesses and so on, put infrastructure in and live in the sun with zero energy used for heat..they don't need cars because they put the infrastructure in suitable to cycle to work in the sun.
And at the same time all the poor from warm countries can move to Hampshire on the condition they agree to a limited energy consumption, they don't get cars as part of the deal but they get a huge garden and conservatory with a patio.
I'm calling this 'green sky thinking' go me, just a hypothetical change in expectations where the planet is central rather than what they want rather than need.
There's technology and technology. How about bioengineering bacteria to produce biofuels or useful compounds from waste or even atmospheric CO2? How about bioengineering plants to provide extra nutrients or drugs in normal food? And it's not always innovations, it's often refinements. Someone sometime soon will come up with a better method for recycling plastic into usable feedstock, and/or removing it from the oceans. Or cheap desalination of sea water using solar energy alone - that'd be handy.
Try following phys.org on facebook - there's loads of this kind of thing on there.
What is the point in using energy to manufacture more short-lived electronic items (that is, solar panels), that produce a relatively minuscule amount of energy and make a lot of landfill?
Because it's not a miniscule amount of energy, and because they last quite well. Honestly, if they weren't worth it in terms of energy they wouldn't be worth it in terms of money either. And they'll be recycled once they reach EOL in 20 years' time.
I think this thread has shattered my peak anxiety from the early days of the Covid thread.
When I was younger I genuinely used to get anxious about what the world would be like when I was older. Looks what we have done to the planets resources in 200 years. Even a simpleton like me can see that it just can't keep going without something seriously going wrong. I try to put my faith in science, and that it will provide us with the right keys to keep us going as a species. But it is so hard to feel positive given the state of the place now.
I'm off to bed, I've had enough of this day.
Honestly, if they weren’t worth it in terms of energy they wouldn’t be worth it in terms of money either.
They are manufactured in China (who, last time I checked, made 95% of the world's solar panels) using brown coal to power the process, and labour from dubious sources to say the least.
If they were made to Western labour standards, and using only renewable energy sources, the benefits of solar would look very different.
I'm not sure if you're also missing my point - I said that (in my opinion) our second option for any form of a sustainable lifestyle was to go 100% nuclear. In that case, why bother with solar?
Why don't you think we could have a mix of renewables and nuclear?
Renewables are pretty cheap, vastly more so than nuclear.
Why don’t you think we could have a mix of renewables and nuclear?
Renewables are not cheap, in energy terms. They are only cheap (as I said) because China makes them cheaply with terrible labour practices and burning of fossil fuels. The EROI (energy retuned on energy invested) of solar panels means that they spend years paying back the energy required to manufacture them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#Photovoltaic
If we tried to manufacture them using only renewable energy, the energy economics would look vastly different than they do now.
Hence my point - if we go nuclear, energy would be cheap enough that there would just be no point messing around with solar. France is around 80% nuclear powered, and has electricity prices around 50% lower than coal-powered Germany.
Ooh this is fun but i am off to walk to a local cafe where i will be consuming locally produced food prepared by people who live locally and that uses reusable cutlery and crockery and that composts / recycles all their waste
Have fun eating their recycled waste smart arse 😜
Huh, how are we using more monitors working from home? Genuine question, at work that’s not happened (although the entire organisation can ‘get by’ on just laptops in reality), I’m guessing that’s replication of set ups for part time desks? And not just working from the laptop in the office?
And all the talk of “simple” really reminds me of pretty much every sales team I’ve ever experienced who go out, make bold (sometimes genuinely unfeasible) promises, but don’t actually have to deliver any of it it. Which I’m hazarding a guess is where Molgrips is coming from as an engineer?
France is around 80% nuclear powered, and has electricity prices around 50% lower than coal-powered Germany
misses the entire point around transport though. Also, don't think about Nuclear cargo either, as there are not many ports in the world that will accept them, that won’t change. Im sure next you will say - electric ships, getting the leccy from nuclear - if you think a car battery is big and expensive, a cargo ship one would be astronomical.
You can't get away from the fact that we will always need transport, and transport needs energy (i get im sounding repetitive). Physics and chemistry tells us very clearly that harnessing energy in a liquid state is the best thing to do. As we’ve said, yes you could use that Nuclear to run an “efuel” plant, so a defector conversion of nuclear to liquid, but you still have the major issue with radioactive waste. Lets not also forget, Japan is banning nuclear because of all of the issues, other countries have already done the same, so it’s not suitable for everyone.
I understand the major point around cutting energy, but it leads to a cut in transport – simple. If you cut transport you cut trade, if you cut trade you cut your access to resources and technology that we rely on. Even with a re-set, where do you think that will get us – literally back to the middle ages at best. No one single country in this world is living entirely off it’s own resources, they haven’t done for hundreds, if not thousands of years – even Jesus had people travelling to him from 3 parts of the world, they might have used horses and carts – but that was advancement from walking!
Sui - so you are saying you are not prepared to take the necessary steps? Thus mass extinction is inevitable. A very defeatist line
There is no other choice. Reduce energy and resource consumption dramatically in the west or face extinction
blimey TJ, that's not waht has been said at all, plus ther are two arguments here - one is yours which is stop all energy, the other is about incentives for technology netutrality to help us all advance.
I've said there is an inevitability that energy demand will rise as the human race will not be prepared to go backwards, if it was you wouldn't be sitting here arguing with me, you'd be in the woods eating seasonal food, not riding bikes for fun and many of the other things you do - oh yeah also all that hopsital equipemnt that saves lives where's that come from?
my point (gument 2), as well as others, is that with that inevitability, we all have to encourage technology to make a change. I haven't stood back, i've personally got a lot of money invested in the new tech, but my view along with a lot of other very clever people is that electrification isn't the answer.
I wonder what the next generation's scare will be?
I've lived through the coming Ice Age, Nuclear Obliteration in the next 5 minutes, Silent Spring, we're all going to die from AIDS, and a few others.
Not that there's anything wrong with the current campaign for the environment. It's a fundamental rule of life, don't shit in your own nest, and in this case our nest is the whole planet.
We could start by imposing environmental tariffs on products that come from countires that don't observe the same standards as we do. That might even rehome some of the industries that have been shifted overseas when we exported our jobs and pollution to them.
Sui
Point out where I said "stop all energy"
You said
"I understand the major point around cutting energy, but it leads to a cut in transport – simple. If you cut transport you cut trade, if you cut trade you cut your access to resources and technology that we rely on." "literally back to the middle ages at best."
Now reducing western energy consumption is the only way to reduce global warming. You state this is impossible. thus the only conclusion to be drawn from following your argument that energy consumption must increase is that you believe global extinction event that we are already in is inevitable
. You simply fail to understand the basics here and continue with this canard that nothing can be done. There is no technogogical solution to this. ( well unless we get fusion on line in thre next few years which ain't gonna happen)
Well I am off again. Its pointless.
TJ, reducing consumption needn't be the answer to reducing warming, that's a false equivalence. Were it true wind turbines would cause global warming and we know that's patently false.
Sui, nuclear is not an answer on its own but it is part of the solution. Anything that contributes to decarbobisation is. The nuance is that is has to be used in a sustainable way, cradle to grave, whether that's a nuclear reactor or a wind turbine. Synthetic fuels only do that if they capture carbon somewhere in the process, or don't contain carbon at all.
misses the entire point around transport though.
No, the point of that comment was evidence that nuclear power is cheap (unlike your assertion).
You can’t get away from the fact that we will always need transport, and transport needs energy (i get im sounding repetitive). Physics and chemistry tells us very clearly that harnessing energy in a liquid state is the best thing to do.
If you think that we need as much trade as we do (which I do not - the astronomical amount of consumption we currently perform is just not sustainable, in any way, nor is so much trade necessarily good for local business and industry), and that it needs decarburising (which, frankly, I am not too worried about), then just where is that energy going to come from?
I've already run through the top-level maths for powering just UK ground transportation using sustainable fuels grown in the UK, and it's very clear that it will just not add up without a reduction in demand by at least two orders of magnitude. I could run through the maths for maritime shipping fuel demands, but there's no point - it's even worse. How do you think it is possible to sustain our current habits?
TJ, reducing consumption needn’t be the answer to reducing warming, that’s a false equivalence. Were it true wind turbines would cause global warming and we know that’s patently false.
It's our consumption of the world's resources that is exactly the core of what is unsustainable. I find it amazing that people are arguing for our current lifestyle to continue - I assume you would agree that everyone on the planet should live like us, to make it fair?
Also - why is it "patently false" that wind turbines contribute to global warming? Their manufacture, which is quite energy-intensive (especially compared to their total energy output over their lifetime), certainly produces CO2 emissions, and it takes a while for the turbine to "pay off" it's CO2 debt once in operation.
Edit: My main issue with renewable power is that their manufacture is heavily subsidized (probably by 100%) by fossil fuels. If we had to make all of these things using only renewable power, the energy economics would be very different (and electricity would be much more expensive). To estimate this, a careful analysis of the EROI (energy returned on energy invested) is needed. The EROI on renewables is lower than current, non-renewable sources, which means it will be more expensive to produce electricity.
if we go nuclear, energy would be cheap enough that there would just be no point messing around with solar.
How many times have we heard that since the 60s?
@tjagain reduction is not the only solution - we need heavy reduction in consumption AND renewable energy. The more we do the former, the easier the latter will be.
How many times have we heard that since the 60s?
Move to France, and take a look at your power bill.
@tjagain reduction is not the only solution – we need heavy reduction in consumption AND renewable energy. The more we do the former, the easier the latter will be.
Now that is an excellent summary that I can't disagree with.
I find it amazing that people are arguing for our current lifestyle to continue
If you don't want the "average Joe" rioting in the streets, or even want people to just agree to vote for politicians who want to even start looking at this issue, then keeping "current lifestyles" as close to where they are now, is going to be your No1 priority. Folk are simple not going to accept anything less. Now you can rant and rave about how stupid folk are but once you done that, come back with some solutions. Cause this is THE stumbling block you've got to get over.
It’s our consumption of the world’s resources that is exactly the core of what is unsustainable. I find it amazing that people are arguing for our current lifestyle to continue – I assume you would agree that everyone on the planet should live like us, to make it fair?
Also – why is it “patently false” that wind turbines contribute to global warming? Their manufacture, which is quite energy-intensive (especially compared to their total energy output over their lifetime), certainly produces CO2 emissions, and it takes a while for the turbine to “pay off” it’s CO2 debt once in operation.
Okay a couple of points to answer.
1) Yes that's what makes it unsustainable, agreed.
2)Im not arguing to carry on as is, I was correcting the statement that consumption the cause of warming. Its not, directly at least, its the release of greenhouse gases that does this.
3) The turbine can be manufactured in a carbon neutral way. It isn't, of itself, a CO2 emitter therefore doesnt necessarily contribute to global warming. By saying it does you are essentially saying nothing is good enough or can be good enough because you choose to ignore the changes that could be made. That's the argument the anti-renewable lot make and its horseshit, to give it an academic name.
In fact I have no idea what your argument is. On one hand you are screaming about global warming and sustainability but close off saying renewables are too expensive and the economics don't stack up. Which side of the fence are you on because that's not a balanced or rational argument.
Move to France, and take a look at your power bill.
Subsidised, no? There are concerns even in France over economic viability:
https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower-idUSL8N1YF5HC
My main issue with renewable power is that their manufacture is heavily subsidized (probably by 100%) by fossil fuels.
Not a particularly unreasonable concept though is it - use fossil fuels to ramp up renewable production, then use this generation of renewables to produce the next generation? We have to start somewhere. The same was and possibly is still true of nuclear.
then keeping “current lifestyles” as close to where they are now, is going to be your No1 priority. Folk are simple not going to accept anything less
Unless it's e.g. a four day work week. Same productivity, same wages, less energy used. Or WFH.
Don't forget though that excess consumption, or lifestyle, is only a problem for those with the resources to do it. A change in lifestyle might actually benefit those on the lower end of the scale.
WFH is the big win for any government with a proper long term view and a tiny bit of commitment to the environment.
WFH is the big win for any government with a proper long term view and a tiny bit of commitment to the environment.
I'd be very interested to see how much if the workforce actually can work from home. I'm guessing it's a relatively small percentage. Plus if permanent, do houses need some retrofit (insulation etc.) To really realise much energy savings.
Or WFH.
I'm willing to bet the same 50p I lost to TJ yesterday that more people can't work from WFH compared to those that can.
I’d be very interested to see how much if the workforce actually can work from home. I’m guessing it’s a relatively small percentage.
During the pandemic the percentage was quite high. Seems likely that whilst employers may plead that their staff cannot work from home, a lot probably can.
Of course, it would be rather difficult to just go straight to 50% home working immediately however with a bit of effort on the part of the government it's possible to achieve something significant.
A 50% reduction in traffic on the roads would make a huge difference in congestion, and stop the never-ending construction of roads which themselves produce a huge amount of CO2. Along with office blocks - concrete production is one of the world's biggest CO2 producers.
And I suspect that if 50% of workers worked from home it'd reduce the number of commuter miles by more than 50% because my guess is that the ones with the longer commutes would be the ones jumping at the chance to WFH.
I’m willing to bet the same 50p I lost to TJ yesterday that more people can’t work from WFH compared to those that can.
Doesn't mean it's not worth bothering with, does it? Why do we only need one single policy, why can't we do lots?
Doesn’t mean it’s not worth bothering with, does it?
No, not all, I loved my commute! But again it needs a serious looking at, as there's a host of secondary jobs that rely on workers all going to offices, from the cafes, restaurants that feed them, to the electricians, plumbers, and so on that fix them, to the folk running stationary businesses and IT businesses and on and on and on and...It's nothing short of a massive realignment of how we do "living and working"
I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying (as you have been) "Just reduce consumption" is hugely complex, and there are few (if any) simple answers.
A 50% reduction in traffic on the roads would make a huge difference in congestion, and stop the never-ending construction of roads which themselves produce a huge amount of CO2.
People still drive - WFH they just drive to the shops, to school, to the cafe. Rather than one journey in and one journey out morning & afternoon respectively, I'd actually be willing to bet there's a higher number of shorter journeys happening locally.
You've just moved the traffic around a bit rather than all going into "the city" and out again.
The turbine can be manufactured in a carbon neutral way. It isn’t, of itself, a CO2 emitter
It could, but as I pointed out, the energy economics in that case (as indicated by the EROI value of renewable power sources), would mean that electricity is much more expensive. My TV, mounted to the wall, is not a CO2 emitter by itself. However, a hell of a lot of CO2 was emitted to turn some rocks into precision semiconductors and then ship the various components around the world several times.
Yes, while in use, a turbine extracts energy from a source that doesn't produce CO2, but the energy and CO2 economics are not simple.
In fact I have no idea what your argument is.
I probably should summarise my opinions, instead of leaving it scattered across many comments.
1. It's (mostly) about energy usage, although it would also be nice not to extract so many minerals and turn them into persistent toxic pollutants. In my opinion, every decision should be framed with "how much energy did this take?" We also generally have very little idea just how much energy is used to make all of the things we use every day, a very large amount of that being for semiconductor devices in all of the electronics we buy.
The energy returned on energy invested values of our various options for power generation should inform us of the potential future energy economics, and the EROI for renewables is much worse than fossil fuels (obviously, because fossil fuels are essentially free, very high density energy). To me, a future where everything is wind or solar powered would not have affordable enough energy to power the manufacture of most of the devices we use every day, nor power anything like the amount of motorised transportation we currently perform.
2. Our lifestyle, and the amount of resources we consume, is wildly unsustainable by any means. And that's with only a small fraction of the global population living like we do.
3. The solutions we are generally being presented are, as far as I can see, practically ineffectual nibbling around the edges of the problem. They also co-incidentally will make a select group of people and companies very rich (I'm effectively invested in lithium, it's doing really well atm!). It doesn't help to make something 1% more "sustainable" and claim that it's "just the first step", when that solution has absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near 100%, or even 50%. They also have a lot of side effects - for example, the mandated switch to PHEVs and EVs mean that people like me, who use a bit of mechanical knowledge to keep old cars going for a very affordable price, will be obliged to pour more money into car ownership. Engineers like me will suffer as more and more industry and design moves overseas, because we keep mandating industries out of existence but continue to buy the end products from other countries. Consumers will suffer, as they have to spend huge amounts more on various essentials, for a disproportionally small decrease in CO2 output.
4. Solutions that really make a difference are not that hard to do (you all loved to lay into TJ for this opinion, but it's really not hard to give up buying new electronic items every few months, or cut the number of miles you drive). Somehow, however, it seems that the solutions to our environmental issues involve manufacturing and buying enormous quantities of high-tech electronic items.
5. Ultimately, energy will become more scarce, EVs, wind turbines, and mandated veganism or no, and that will make us find a solution.
Okay, so you've brought a load of problems, what's your solution? You talk about embedded energy a lot but don't address the difference it makes whether it's come from a sustainable source or not which then seems like you are advocating fossil fuels because they have a lower EROI.
4 is fair enough, that's just saying 2 differently.
5 is fundamentally wrong and as an engineer you really should know better. That's just utter nonsense.
the mandated switch to PHEVs and EVs mean that people like me, who use a bit of mechanical knowledge to keep old cars going for a very affordable price, will be obliged to pour more money into car ownership.
Don't think so, the plan is to stop selling new ICE cars, you'll still be able to drive the one you have or buy a used one. And in 2035 there will be lots of cheap used EVs around, and new ones will likely be as cheap as ICEs are now.
fossil fuels are essentially free
Eh? They take a fair bit of extraction and refining don't they?
That's why my diesel car costs ten times as much per mile to fuel as my EV.
During the pandemic the percentage was quite high. Seems likely that whilst employers may plead that their staff cannot work from home, a lot probably can.
I can't remember what happened when, cos it was so long ago, well seems like it anyway, but were people furloughed/laid off etc? The stas refelect people that were employed. A lot who probably couldn't work from home were probably not employed.
A few if us were discussing this. Once you factor in shops, manufacturing, teaching, support occupations (cleaning/ maintenance) building, servicing. There are a lot who can't. I guess what we need is a measure of what jobs could be done from home, not which ones are.
As I said. 4 day work week for all. Pick any 4 days you like.
You’ve just moved the traffic around a bit rather than all going into “the city” and out again
Which is actually good. It's not necessarily people making trips, it's when and where. Sitting in a traffic jam you are traveling 0 mike's per unit of pollution. Moving at a constant speed is much better. So if people do their trips at different times and different places, avoiding traffic, that will have a noticeable effect on pollution. Not as much as not driving mind you.
Okay, so you’ve brought a load of problems, what’s your solution?
I've given it, multiple times. Stop buying products with huge amounts of embodied energy (which is dominated by electronic goods like TVs, phones, laptops, etc), and avoid driving as much as possible. I also suggested turning your thermostat down a few degrees, but I got accused of killing people in the process....
5 is fundamentally wrong and as an engineer you really should know better. That’s just utter nonsense.
How so? Our society is fuelled by millions of years of stored solar energy, in the form of fossil fuels. We are getting through them at a huge rate, and there is nothing like it in terms of easy-to-access high-density energy (unless we go nuclear, or fusion becomes viable). As an engineer, I look at the EROI values of various energy sources, and that clearly informs me how much energy would cost from each source, on a level playing field. For example, the EROI value for nuclear is about 16x greater than solar, that is, you get 16x more energy per unit of energy invested in manufacturing the generation mechanism.
Don’t think so, the plan is to stop selling new ICE cars, you’ll still be able to drive the one you have or buy a used one.
Reliable 2nd hand cars are already getting more and more expensive. Also, denying future generations the cheaper method of doing things (that is in this case, running old cars and fixing them yourself), is also known as "pulling up the ladder".
And in 2035 there will be lots of cheap used EVs around, and new ones will likely be as cheap as ICEs are now.
We will see how the economics of EVs work out, but there will be no way you could fix a cheap, old EV with some spanners and a Haynes manual.
Eh? They take a fair bit of extraction and refining don’t they?
That’s why my diesel car costs ten times as much per mile to fuel as my EV.
Gas and coal, not so much. Petrol, yes, although it's not so big a deal (maybe 3% of the energy present in raw crude is used in refining). Diesel, less so. The reason diesel is so expensive (assuming you live in the UK) is that 72% of the price goes to the government in taxes. Obviously, re-fuelling an EV will be taxed more in the future, to make up the lost government income.
molgrips
Full MemberSubsidised, no? There are concerns even in France over economic viability:
OK, so France's nuclear is a gigantic economic disaster, but it's not a nuclear issue, it's a generations-long corporate malfeasance mixed with political dishonesty issue. Put simply, they've never properly funded decommissioning and they've got so used to kicking it down the road, and so content with the dishonesty and the nicer picture they can paint with lies, that they never had the will to do anything about it. And now it's too late. EDF is bankrupt and has been for years, they're just in the long tail of pretending it's not happening.
(this of course is a pretty good metaphor for global warming)
France has its actual-nuclear scandals too, like creusot, or the way safety issues at the new Flamanville reactor only ever get found by the external inspectors even though it's obvious that the builders are aware. But the financial stuff is just coincidentally-nuclear.
Also, denying future generations the cheaper method of doing things (that is in this case, running old cars and fixing them yourself), is also known as “pulling up the ladder”.
That's not what happening. 2035 is the deadline for stopping sales of NEW ICE cars. Cars sold in 2034 will still be available as old bangers in 2050.
there will be no way you could fix a cheap, old EV with some spanners and a Haynes manual.
Course there will. Shocks, steering gear, bushings, interior gubbins, bearings l, brakes etc etc will be fixable same as they are now. Most of the crap you had to fart about in the good old days like plugs, points, oil changes, filters, HT leads, carburettors, fuelling sensors cam belts and all won't apply to EVs obviously.
We will see how the economics of EVs work out, but there will be no way you could fix a cheap, old EV with some spanners and a Haynes manual.
This get's trotted out a lot but....
1) With regards to the computers, there's arguably less computing going on than a modern ICE engine.
2) There's no engine and gearbox in need of servicing and rebuilds, although that's been the case for a couple of decades at least with nmodern cars. Suspension, brakes, hubs etc that do still wear out aren't going to change much.
3) There's already people rebuilding crashed or otherwise written of Teslas from the ground up.
4) There's loads of people stripping the guts out of written off electric cars and building them into all sorts of classics and kit cars.
Also, this was discussed on the other recent thread, but with a lot of value tied up in the recyclable battery it'll be interesting to see whether the higher upfront costs of electric cars (rather than ongoing fuel costs) means they're kept on the road for longer as repair work out relatively economical Vs their higher scrap value.
it’ll be interesting to see whether the higher upfront costs of electric cars (rather than ongoing fuel costs) means they’re kept on the road for longer as repair work out relatively economical Vs their higher scrap value.
Well, they won't be more expensive for long. And the car won't be scrap when the battery goes because it's only one component and it can be changed. Once you stick in a refurbished battery the car is likely to be almost as good as new. There might be services where you pay £5k and drop it off for a full refurb and you get a nearly new car again.
The bigger issue is going to be the relative performance of 10 year old cars Vs their new equivalents. That's what'll depress the market for older cars.
I don't buy the argument that EVs will be repairable by the regular Joe.
With regards to the computers, there’s arguably less computing going on than a modern ICE engine.
Arguably not, EV motor control is not trivial. EVs also seem to take the opportunity to add as many touchscreens and un-necessary electronics as possible (not that regular cars avoid this, although a while ago Mazda said they were removing touchscreens from new designs).
There’s no engine and gearbox in need of servicing and rebuilds
Some EVs do have a gearbox, and all EVs have reduction gears. Most of them have coolant pumps, a number have oil pumps. There are plenty of parts to wear out.
There’s already people rebuilding crashed or otherwise written of Teslas from the ground up.
Like Rich Rebuilds, with the Youtube channel? He gave up on his big idea of rebuilding and repairing Teslas, and returned to ICE-based content, because of his frustration with Tesla's anti-repair attitude and how difficult they made it to do just that.
Likewise, using an EV powertrain to convert a classic car to electric requires a lot of knowledge and is not for the faint of heart. Not least because of all the proprietary electronics that the manufacturers would prefer you left alone.
EV batteries are also not currently recyclable, at least at any useful scale. Yes, I'm a aware that they will be, "very soon". As I said, we will see how the EV economics works out in the long term.