60 MPH Limit on Motorways

[green van man]

Originally Posted by biggbn

Because we do have too? Times ticking

By who's definition?

We know oil / gas are finite resources, however more reserves are being found and yes the cost will increase but at present there are no viable alternates. Remember oil is not just fuel, fertalisers and all plastics are oil derivatives.

There were reports in the press that we had passed peak oil. Then the confounded oil companies found more reserves, hence peak oil was delayed and the decline when it comes will be gradual.

Mini newclear reactors for cars have been suggested, does anyone really want to be in an RTA with 1 or 2 of those exploding? Chinoble was what 40 years ago, it was only 5 or 6 years ago that stock movement restrictions were lifted from farms in North wales. Imagine the exclusion zones around every accident.

Hydrogen fuel cells have been mooted, fine but currently it takes a lot of electricity to manufacture the Hydrogen, how is that electricity being generated, if by gas we are better off just burning the oil directly.

Renewable electricity has hidden environmental costs that are seldom explained. To repay the carbon cost of building a wind turbine takes an average of 25 years, design life of a turbine, 25 years, carbon neutral at best. As with every mechanical devise there have been families, runaways, explosions etc and they produce nothing when the wind does not blow.

Solar panels again, huge environmental cost to manufacture and payback time aproaching 20 years. Design life of panel, around 15 to 20 years and they do not generate at night when we need it most.

Currently every renewable sources has to have a rapid responce carbon fuel back up for when conditions do not meet their requirements.

Electricity storage, again battery technology is improving but it is still resource dependant and when those costs are factored in again we are better off burning theoil directly.

I fear all the green agenda does is move the costs and pollution elsewhere.

We are being sold a pup, there is no clean fuel, and the geni is out of the bag with personal transport. We all have it, we all want it, and we will resist to the utmost any move to take it from us and every democratic government knows it.
Any govornment brave enough to try will find themselves quickly replaced at the next election by any party willing to reverse the changes. No matter how many Swedish kids they bring out to harangue us.

Greater principles quickly tarnish when it effects individuals directly.

I have spent a working life in the energy industry, I have seen the brave new initiatives come and go, and we still rely on fossil fuel to ensure our demand can be met. I cannot see that changing any time soon.

Paul.

[Whippy]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I suspect that may well happen, a mini-nuclear reactor, anti-gravity engine, plasma drive or ionic drive or perhaps even some sort of electromagnetic drive although that might interfere with the anti-gravity engine.

A mini-nuclear reactor would be the ideal thing to produce the energy needed for that but then we're still back to plundering the earth for the materials to not only build but fuel the thing.

How about a tinfoil hat drive?

Hydrogen is a coming in folks, put your money on the table, last one in loses, Hurry! Hurry!

[biggbn]

Originally Posted by green van man

By who's definition?

We know oil / gas are finite resources, however more reserves are being found and yes the cost will increase but at present there are no viable alternates. Remember oil is not just fuel, fertalisers and all plastics are oil derivatives.

There were reports in the press that we had passed peak oil. Then the confounded oil companies found more reserves, hence peak oil was delayed and the decline when it comes will be gradual.

Mini newclear reactors for cars have been suggested, does anyone really want to be in an RTA with 1 or 2 of those exploding? Chinoble was what 40 years ago, it was only 5 or 6 years ago that stock movement restrictions were lifted from farms in North wales. Imagine the exclusion zones around every accident.

Hydrogen fuel cells have been mooted, fine but currently it takes a lot of electricity to manufacture the Hydrogen, how is that electricity being generated, if by gas we are better off just burning the oil directly.

Renewable electricity has hidden environmental costs that are seldom explained. To repay the carbon cost of building a wind turbine takes an average of 25 years, design life of a turbine, 25 years, carbon neutral at best. As with every mechanical devise there have been families, runaways, explosions etc and they produce nothing when the wind does not blow.

Solar panels again, huge environmental cost to manufacture and payback time aproaching 20 years. Design life of panel, around 15 to 20 years and they do not generate at night when we need it most.

Currently every renewable sources has to have a rapid responce carbon fuel back up for when conditions do not meet their requirements.

Electricity storage, again battery technology is improving but it is still resource dependant and when those costs are factored in again we are better off burning theoil directly.

I fear all the green agenda does is move the costs and pollution elsewhere.

We are being sold a pup, there is no clean fuel, and the geni is out of the bag with personal transport. We all have it, we all want it, and we will resist to the utmost any move to take it from us and every democratic government knows it.
Any govornment brave enough to try will find themselves quickly replaced at the next election by any party willing to reverse the changes. No matter how many Swedish kids they bring out to harangue us.

Greater principles quickly tarnish when it effects individuals directly.

I have spent a working life in the energy industry, I have seen the brave new initiatives come and go, and we still rely on fossil fuel to ensure our demand can be met. I cannot see that changing any time soon.

Paul.

I will use my common sense for a definition Paul. Since the dawn of the planet, fossil fuels have been forming, since man came along he had been extracting them quicker and quicker, and he keeps breeding and breeding, and has been taking them out quicker than they can be recreated or replaced since he started doing so...simple logic tells me there are only so many cookies in the jar. I do not view this as negative, man is a resourceful and needy animal and will come up with something to replace them because he has too. We will adapt, personally and collectively because we will have to, necessity being inventions old dear and all that. Time will come when we will live at a lesser pace, we will not expect delivery next day, we will plan our wasteful lives better and the world will be a less stressful, more pleasant place.

What is your answer? Just keep scraping the bottom of the barrel and hope its a false bottom? We will adapt to life without oil and plastics because we are going to have to, be it next week, next year, or a thousand years from now. To not explore or consider alternatives because 'its a bit inconvenient' and 'i like the sound of a big petrol engine woofwoofwoof' is an irresponsibility that is almost criminal in its negligence.

The above is only my opinion, I appreciate many disagree and am also aware we will all be dead by the time it becomes an issue. I would rather not make things worse if possible in my short time on this rock we rape daily...

[green van man]

Agreed George, we are but 2 individuals, until 7 billion individuals decide to change it will only happen by force and the resentment that causes will lead to kickback and reversal of any change implemented at the earliest opertunity

Were we to take a considered aproach where we know change is needed and develop alternates that actually are viable then I belive the transition could be seamless.
However the doom sayers are ever vociferous, wild predictions on short timescales that have been repeatedly discredited.
Political power games rather than seeking alternate fuels to ensure our standards of living.

For instance. Climate Change Nexus, an independent Canadian group looked at the climate forecasts from the 1980s, despite their 10 or 20 year timescales and predictions of certain disaster if we did not adopt radical change that would adversely affect humanity , we are still hear, the sky has not fallen in.
Chicken licking hysteria serves no one well.

Movements like ER are being manipulated for the good of the 1% not the world..

Yes change is needed, and I will change when a rational course based on sound and provable probabilities is set. I do not ask for fact for they will come after the event, and so far most of the facts presented have proven mistaken if not downright false.

To effect change, first trust must be restored in the thinking behind the decisions, the aims of the decisions, and the true cost of the decisions. Until then it's political spin I shall resist.

Paul.

[pinballdave]

Originally Posted by green van man

Renewable electricity has hidden environmental costs that are seldom explained. To repay the carbon cost of building a wind turbine takes an average of 25 years, design life of a turbine, 25 years, carbon neutral at best.

Where did you come across that figure? it's out by a factor of about 30.

The wind turbine itself repays it's carbon cost in a few months, but once you factor in transportation, construction of foundations and access roads, connecting it to the grid, maintenance and decommissioning costs, it ends up at around 7-9 months. Offshore takes a bit longer, but is still generally under a year.

What is the carbon payback period for a wind turbine? New Scientist

Solar is a bit more carbon intensive to manufacture. The panels themselves take around 2 years to break even, once you add in all the external factors like in the case of the wind turbines, you'll add another year or so. The panel lifespan is typically quoted as 20-25 years, but they don't just stop working, it is just the point at which their efficiency has degraded so that they only produce around 80% of the power that they did when new.

I've just put a meter on an 18 year old panel we used for a remote lighting/electric fence project, it was 30W when new, and still kicking out 28W, and now all the bulbs are more efficient LEDs, I suspect it will still be kicking out enough juice to power them in another 18 years time.

The real cost of intermittent renewables isn't in the their carbon payback times, but in the need to keep and maintain a parallel energy generation system for those dark and still times.

[green van man]

Originally Posted by pinballdave

Where did you come across that figure? it's out by a factor of about 30.

The wind turbine itself repays it's carbon cost in a few months, but once you factor in transportation, construction of foundations and access roads, connecting it to the grid, maintenance and decommissioning costs, it ends up at around 7-9 months. Offshore takes a bit longer, but is still generally under a year.

What is the carbon payback period for a wind turbine? New Scientist

Solar is a bit more carbon intensive to manufacture. The panels themselves take around 2 years to break even, once you add in all the external factors like in the case of the wind turbines, you'll add another year or so. The panel lifespan is typically quoted as 20-25 years, but they don't just stop working, it is just the point at which their efficiency has degraded so that they only produce around 80% of the power that they did when new.

I've just put a meter on an 18 year old panel we used for a remote lighting/electric fence project, it was 30W when new, and still kicking out 28W, and now all the bulbs are more efficient LEDs, I suspect it will still be kicking out enough juice to power them in another 18 years time.

The real cost of intermittent renewables isn't in the their carbon payback times, but in the need to keep and maintain a parallel energy generation system for those dark and still times.

I got my figures from industry sources, as I say a working life in the energy field. By the time the carbon cost of building anew on shore wind turbine is totaled it will take 25 years of producing electricity to repay .

You belive the new Scientist if you like, I shall stick to what I'm told by the engineers whom build them.

Paul.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by green van man

I got my figures from industry sources, as I say a working life in the energy field. By the time the carbon cost of building anew on shore wind turbine is totaled it will take 25 years of producing electricity to repay .

You belive the new Scientist if you like, I shall stick to what I'm told by the engineers whom build them.

Paul.

You beat me to it Paul, i was going to explain the expected life of solar cells is more like 15 years and the real world use to generate power at National grid levels is a world apart from a lab test by New Scientist who seem to be heavily biased anyway having read some of their stuff.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/...use-goals.html

That makes very interesting reading, predominantly on EVs but touches (if memory serves) on sustainable power.

Presumably though, as it's a totally independent report by people qualified to report on such matters it will be disregarded by all "New Scientist" readers because it isn't biased enough!

[pinballdave]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

That makes very interesting reading, predominantly on EVs but touches (if memory serves) on sustainable power.

Agree with all the EV stuff, There's a huge amount of CO2 generated from the manufacture of a new car, and even more so with an EV, a lot of it coming from mining of rare earth minerals.

I did all the calculations myself for replacing my Volvo 850 with an electric vehicle a couple of years ago. On the number of miles I do a year (which is quite low now), taking the annual emissions from the fuel burned in the Volvo, and comparing it to the manufacturing emissions of a small new EV, I would need to run the EV for 16 years, and ensure all the energy used to charge it was zero carbon. If the battery didn't last those 16 years, then I'd need to add another 4 years of use for each replacement battery.


As far as New Scientist goes, I agree it is biassed towards a green agenda. But if you clicked through the links provided in that article, you could read the academic papers, and government reports that contain the raw data and calculations performed to obtain those results.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by pinballdave

Agree with all the EV stuff, There's a huge amount of CO2 generated from the manufacture of a new car, and even more so with an EV, a lot of it coming from mining of rare earth minerals.

I did all the calculations myself for replacing my Volvo 850 with an electric vehicle a couple of years ago. On the number of miles I do a year (which is quite low now), taking the annual emissions from the fuel burned in the Volvo, and comparing it to the manufacturing emissions of a small new EV, I would need to run the EV for 16 years, and ensure all the energy used to charge it was zero carbon. If the battery didn't last those 16 years, then I'd need to add another 4 years of use for each replacement battery.


As far as New Scientist goes, I agree it is biassed towards a green agenda. But if you clicked through the links provided in that article, you could read the academic papers, and government reports that contain the raw data and calculations performed to obtain those results.

Thing is, electric motors (used to propel the EVs) are generators in reverse so that makes wind power non-viable straight away. Don't forget that for both solar and wind power, we need a back up so batteries will be needd to create a huge UPS in effect.

As for govt reports, data etc - i've lost all faith in those over recent years and this year has literally hammered all the nails into the coffin of any beliefs i had in govt integrity as far as scientific advances go.

Perhaps that analogy isn't in the best of taste, wasn't intentional so no offence meant but it serves to illustrate how i feel about govt involvement with science.

[Whippy]

There's always a cost, always.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101