Off Topic The Environmental & Pollution Thread

[StJabbo1]

..... and the answer is reliable, affordable and regular public transport to get people out of cars, no to create millions of more cars rammed full of technology.

Bloody right Kaits an integrated system makes sense and works in many countries. It's also fun and relaxing, let the train take the strain.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

..... and the answer is reliable, affordable and regular public transport to get people out of cars, no to create millions of more cars rammed full of technology.

I agree absolutely, but my point was that FSD, by the time it’s fully legalised, will be safer than humans driving.

 

[TheSecondStain]

Another edition of Robert Llewellyn's Fully Charged News. Here Robert (never Bob, he hates that) talks about our recent high winds and the huge amount of sustained electricity provided. He didn't mention that it got upto 66% at one point, but it did:

You must log in or register to see media

 

[StJabbo1]

You must log in or register to see media

Thanks Ern good one. Could you ever get away with building one of those in Poole for example?

 

[TheSecondStain]

Climate campaigners win against the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Until civil airliners become all-electric or hydrogen/electric, I think that's the wisest decision.
Electric aircraft aren't more than a decade away though. The government could possibly rethink about expansion when there are no more ff aircraft flying:
BBC News - Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693

 

[VocalMinority]

Bloody right Kaits an integrated system makes sense and works in many countries. It's also fun and relaxing, let the train take the strain.

This is basically what I say every time somebody asks why I take the train into work. I really do like it when it works.

Although it's difficult to sound enthusiastic right now when I've only had one day this month when both of my trains were running.

 

[Big Ern]

Climate campaigners win against the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Until civil airliners become all-electric or hydrogen/electric, I think that's the wisest decision.
Electric aircraft aren't more than a decade away though. The government could possibly rethink about expansion when there are no more ff aircraft flying:
BBC News - Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693

Short hops maybe, but the power to weight ratio says there'll be no international flights, the tech is nowhere near good enough. For example a tesla can do 370miles, it's batteries weigh 540kg, to do it in a car you'd need less than 100kg of fuel.You need a moratorium on flights, but that ain't gonna happen, it'll cause too much damage to too many economies.

We're ****ed, there's too many people that have to give up too much to give us a chance.

 

[TheSecondStain]

Short hops maybe, but the power to weight ratio says there'll be no international flights, the tech is nowhere near good enough. For example a tesla can do 370miles, it's batteries weigh 540kg, to do it in a car you'd need less than 100kg of fuel.You need a moratorium on flights, but that ain't gonna happen, it'll cause too much damage to too many economies.

We're ****ed, there's too many people that have to give up too much to give us a chance.

You're looking through a short term lens. It'll be perfectly possible sooner than you think.
And whatever you say, don't fall into the trap of saying "never". Once the will to do something is gained, it should be no surprise when something is achieved. And the will to make a hydrogen/electric airliner is already there and designs are on drawing boards.

And on a general note. Electric cars, trains, ships, planes and power generation are well inline with environmental values. The biggest task of all is to make industry clean, and waste too. And this goes hand in hand with the ecology that surrounds us.

 

[VocalMinority]

You're looking through a short term lens. It'll be perfectly possible sooner than you think.
And whatever you say, don't fall into the trap of saying "never". Once the will to do something is gained, it should be no surprise when something is achieved. And the will to make a hydrogen/electric airliner is already there and designs are on drawing boards.

And on a general note. Electric cars, trains, ships, planes and power generation are well inline with environmental values. The biggest task of all is to make industry clean, and waste too. And this goes hand in hand with the ecology that surrounds us.

Just to add to that, the biggest advantage electricity has in cars and in general is its versatility. If we adopt and build the infrastructure for electric cars (we already have the grid)then if, later down the line you get a new, greener battery technology then you can produce cars for that that can immediately use all the infrastructure built for electric cars and have all designs still work. Same goes for power generation. You start to bring it in straight away and put is straight into the grid.

If all the fuel stations are fitted to supply hydrogen and we need to switch to something else for some reason, then you have to rebuild everything and you'll have multiple cars running on multiple things and all the problems that creates. Vehicles being brought in will have a lack of fuel points (like now) and in the future that will apply to outdated cars.

I could go on about the benefits of versatility. Thats not to say Fuel cells dont have advantages too, like not having a charge time. This isn't a post to say electric cars are better than hydrogen, But I just rarely see this brought up when people speak about electric vehicles.

 

[StJabbo1]

Just to add to that, the biggest advantage electricity has in cars and in general is its versatility. If we adopt and build the infrastructure for electric cars (we already have the grid)then if, later down the line you get a new, greener battery technology then you can produce cars for that that can immediately use all the infrastructure built for electric cars and have all designs still work. Same goes for power generation. You start to bring it in straight away and put is straight into the grid.

If all the fuel stations are fitted to supply hydrogen and we need to switch to something else for some reason, then you have to rebuild everything and you'll have multiple cars running on multiple things and all the problems that creates. Vehicles being brought in will have a lack of fuel points (like now) and in the future that will apply to outdated cars.

I could go on about the benefits of versatility. Thats not to say Fuel cells dont have advantages too, like not having a charge time. This isn't a post to say electric cars are better than hydrogen, But I just rarely see this brought up when people speak about electric vehicles.

Getting people out of their cars and into an integrated, reliable and affordable public transport system should be the priority. Years of road building and a powerful road haulage lobby have put the UK well behind many other countries.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Getting people out of their cars and into an integrated, reliable and affordable public transport system should be the priority. Years of road building and a powerful road haulage lobby have put the UK well behind many other countries.

Dr Beeching started the rot in 1963, when he announced the closure of more than 2,000 railway stations and 5,000 miles of track. We have never recovered from that catastrophic blunder.

 

[TheSecondStain]

Getting people out of their cars and into an integrated, reliable and affordable public transport system should be the priority. Years of road building and a powerful road haulage lobby have put the UK well behind many other countries.

Absolutely StJ. Gross railway infrastructure under investment; hanging onto the steam locomotive for decades too long; and as Chilco says, Dr Beeching!
I know if this subject ran long enough, someone would point out that Beeching was only doing what he was tasked to do. But I don't feel charitable about the decimation of the railways. In Europe they got a far better balance. They went electric, some as early as the late 1920s. Most of Europe's fares are waaaay cheaper than ours, with a more comprehensive and linked service. As I understand it, getting people into cars was seen as better for industry and the infrastructure. because most of the expense would be pushed onto the consumer. It made the UK a nation of car owners, while Europe innovated in both trains and cars, if the public wanted them. And we don't have an indigenous car industry these days either, so that idea backfired anyway.

 

[shoot_spiderman]

Climate campaigners win against the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Until civil airliners become all-electric or hydrogen/electric, I think that's the wisest decision.
Electric aircraft aren't more than a decade away though. The government could possibly rethink about expansion when there are no more ff aircraft flying:
BBC News - Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693

Just saw this on the BBC and came here to see you'd already posted it

Expanding airports can't possibly take climate commitments into account
Nice to have some positive news rather than just the usual lip-service commitment to a carbon free economy with no action
Electric aircraft are the way forward for short haul, long-haul is a whole different question with no current answer

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Just saw this on the BBC and came here to see you'd already posted it

Expanding airports can't possibly take climate commitments into account
Nice to have some positive news rather than just the usual lip-service commitment to a carbon free economy with no action
Electric aircraft are the way forward for short haul, long-haul is a whole different question with no current answer

And the even better news is that there is now a legal precedent where climate change has to be taken into account in any future major planning decisions.

 

[shoot_spiderman]

One of the fundamental issues we have created by measuring nations’ development with GDP, which ignores Welfare and Protection of the Environment ...

GDP Limitations & Criticisms
Simon Kuznets, the economist who developed the first comprehensive set of measures of national income, stated in his first report to the US Congress in 1934, in a section titled "Uses and Abuses of National Income Measurements"

The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is often contingent upon oversimplification.

All these qualifications upon estimates of national income as an index of productivity are just as important when income measurements are interpreted from the point of view of economic welfare. But in the latter case additional difficulties will be suggested to anyone who wants to penetrate below the surface of total figures and market values. Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above.

In 1962, Kuznets stated:
Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what.

 

[TheSecondStain]

One of the fundamental issues we have created by measuring nations’ development with GDP, which ignores Welfare and Protection of the Environment ...

GDP Limitations & Criticisms
Simon Kuznets, the economist who developed the first comprehensive set of measures of national income, stated in his first report to the US Congress in 1934, in a section titled "Uses and Abuses of National Income Measurements"

The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is often contingent upon oversimplification.

All these qualifications upon estimates of national income as an index of productivity are just as important when income measurements are interpreted from the point of view of economic welfare. But in the latter case additional difficulties will be suggested to anyone who wants to penetrate below the surface of total figures and market values. Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above.

In 1962, Kuznets stated:
Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what.

Funnily enough, I was only re-listening to **Andrew Yang's The War Against Normal People, where he cites GDP as the worst of indicators of a nation's wellbeing. He mentioned that the originator of the concept thought it was a poor indicator, but they had to use something. But GDP doesn't consider the human side.

**recently dropped out as a Democratic Presidential candidate. Proposed $1000 per month UBI for every US citizen 18 or over.

 

[TheSecondStain]

"Clean Technology Disruption."
When I say I am interested in tech, it only means technology that makes the world a fundamentally better place. I have zero interest in format changes for convenience or just to make companies money. But Solar and Wind power developments that drive out Coal and Gas, that is an example of what turns my head.

Some of you know Tony Seba. An analyst whose predictions for technological disruption have been so accurate so far that any arguing would be mere quibbling. Therefore this guy has an opinion I both listen to and respect. Here's his most recent full talk on Clean Disruption:

You must log in or register to see media

As an environmentalist, this info makes me happy, by and large.​

 

[TheSecondStain]

Woohoo!

The new Shirley, Southampton Lidl store has a Rapid Charger [make a note, Dave]. Bollix to Southampton City Council, and Lidl has now gained a permanent customer. The EV planning can begin in earnest.

 

[davecg69]

Woohoo!

The new Shirley, Southampton Lidl store has a Rapid Charger [make a note, Dave]. Bollix to Southampton City Council, and Lidl has now gained a permanent customer. The EV planning can begin in earnest.

Excellent news! Thanks for the heads up, TSS! I’ve got the rapid charger installed at home now. Charged the car last night for 22p .....

 

[davecg69]

So .... for the month of February (not exactly the sunniest month on record!) I have generated 163kwh from my panels and exported 25kwh to the grid. I don’t know yet what I’ve actually used as I didn’t keep a record of the meter when I changed suppliers (though I’m sure I could find it if I could be bothered to look!).
Not bad - I’m feeling rather smugly “green” today