Fuel!

[Bodrighy]

The sooner it gets to its proper price the sooner alternatives will become economically viable.

What are the alternatives?

Electric.

It must be tough not being able to make choices.

I also live in an area wwhere I can't get broadband so can't access Youtube. I work at a college that hads banned it's use so I am stumped there as well. Oh the joys of rural life

Mind you I wouldn't consider moving into a town where I had to lock my cara, take the key out of my door and have to be careful of neighbours either so I'm not really grumbling.

Could get a pony and trap but then I'd probably get done for littering if it crapped in town :lol:

Pete

 

[andrewm]

Electric cars are not clean. They use electricity which is created by burning fossil fuels in large power stations. OK there is some nuclear and some green, but essentially electricity is a carbon-refined fuel, it's just that the emissions have already been made before the fuel is used.

I'm waiting for fuel-cell technology, powered by Green sources.

I know, dream on, Steve. :?

S

Are you talking about fuel cells powered by ethanol derived from biofuels or from Hydrogen? If hydrogen, as I suspect, then it is produced by electrolysis which involves electricity. That electricity will be as green or non-green as the electricity used in electric cars. The hydrogen is just an alternative (and lighter) storage medium to batteries.

Andrew

 

[andrewm]

What exactly is it that these protesters are protesting about? I know it is the price of petrol but are they unhappy about the price of crude or the tax on it?

If its the price of crude oil, and it has doubled in the past couple of years, then they really ought to be protesting somewhere like Riyadh because it is OPEC who are the price setters in this instance. If they increased production then the price would fall.

If they are complaining about the tax on petrol then what would they (a) tax instead in order to keep the income to the exchequer the same or (b) what services would they cut to account for the lower income to the exchequer. Improving Civil Service efficiency is not a valid answer because you could do that anyway and the question would merely become what other taxes would you not reduce or what services would you not add/improve in order to reduce tax on petrol.

Andrew

 

[Steve Maskery]

then it is produced by electrolysis which involves electricity. That electricity will be as green or non-green as the electricity used in electric cars.

Absolutely, which is why I said "powered by Green sources"

 

[andrewm]

Absolutely, which is why I said "powered by Green sources"

What I was taking exception to was that you first said ...

Electric cars are not clean.

... then went on to imply that fuel cells were. I was trying to point out that electric cars are as green / not green as fuel cells. It is all dependent on the original source of the required electricity.

Andrew

 

[Steve Maskery]

I was trying to point out that electric cars are as green / not green as fuel cells. It is all dependent on the original source of the required electricity.

OK, I see. Yep, no argument there.

 

[Matt_S]

The Tesla roadster in America....an amazing Lotus based sports car is electric with good performance and range figures. Apparently you can buy it with a solar panel kit making it near if not completely emmision free (in the use stage).

I heard George Monbiot suggest an infrastructure where stations are simply battery swapping points making electric cars more viable.

 

[MrJay]

What exactly is it that these protesters are protesting about? I know it is the price of petrol but are they unhappy about the price of crude or the tax on it?

If its the price of crude oil, and it has doubled in the past couple of years, then they really ought to be protesting somewhere like Riyadh because it is OPEC who are the price setters in this instance. If they increased production then the price would fall.

If they are complaining about the tax on petrol then what would they (a) tax instead in order to keep the income to the exchequer the same or (b) what services would they cut to account for the lower income to the exchequer. Improving Civil Service efficiency is not a valid answer because you could do that anyway and the question would merely become what other taxes would you not reduce or what services would you not add/improve in order to reduce tax on petrol.

Andrew

Indeed, it's rather disingenuous to suggest that they're sticking up for poor beleaguered motorists everywhere when the hauliers gripe is the disparity between fuel duty here and on the continent putting them at a competitive disadvantage. Most of us aren't competing with motorists in Holland or wherever it is that Petrol is so cheap and will see no benefit at all from a reduced petrol duty.

Personally I'd rather see containers come over sans lorry and get loaded straight onto a train at the port; from whence it can wind it's way to vaguely close to it's destination before being picked up by lorry for the last leg of the journey. The idea of shipping each container over with it's own lorry attached when we have a mass transit system requires a special sort of madness.

 

[cambournepete]

With Gas, unlike coal and oil, the CO2 can be captured at source

And with coal and oil it's easier to collect the exhaust gases at source (power station) rather than on each individual car.

 

[White House Workshop]

Alternatives...

Fuel cells are one - there's a Honda available already that runs on hydrogen, but it's too dangerous to handle safely yet. The problem is we've all got used to the convenience of petrol - drive up, fill up, pay, drive away. You can't do that with hydrogen. Would you trust Essex Trev in his CorsaSDXL-GT-4V-4X4 and bar (with fluffy dice) to do it safely?

As for the electricity to produce the hydrogen in the first place why not use photovoltaics? The problem with them is the price - hence if petrol gets expensive then more cells will be produced which will bring down the price and make them more viable.

You can also use hydrogen to run ships, trains, planes, etc. The i.c.e. isn't dead by a long way, nor do I believe it will die but it'll change.

That's just one. There are other technology solutions; they're just too expensive compared to petrol - yet.

PS - petrol here went down 3p a litre the other day......

 

[andrewm]

... the hauliers gripe is the disparity between fuel duty here and on the continent putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

I've never quite understood this argument. If they are competing on international routes then they can fill up over there (and continental hauliers have to fill up over here when in the UK). If they are comparing purely national deliveries then continental hauliers are not competition. I would understand more if they were complaining about difference in vehicle excise.

Personally I'd rather see containers come over sans lorry and get loaded straight onto a train at the port; from whence it can wind it's way to vaguely close to it's destination before being picked up by lorry for the last leg of the journey. The idea of shipping each container over with it's own lorry attached when we have a mass transit system requires a special sort of madness.

Compared to the UK much of the American rail system is pretty primative (apologies to our US members but you know it's true ). However the one thing that I was constantly impressed by when I lived over there was how much freight gets moved by rail. It was quite common to see trains with four engines and 100 plus wagons. Bit of a bugger though when you get stuck at a level crossing while one goes through.

Andrew

 

[MrJay]

With Gas, unlike coal and oil, the CO2 can be captured at source

And with coal and oil it's easier to collect the exhaust gases at source (power station) rather than on each individual car.

I wasn't suggesting using gas (the gassy stuff rather than the oily stuff if you're in the Colonies) as a fuel for cars; capturing CO2 from vehicle exhaust is plain silly - you'd need a CO2 tank three times the size of your petrol tank for starters. The CO2 from Gas however is capturable at source (the process of getting fossil fuels out the ground releases large amounts of CO2) and at power stations using existing technology today. There is no existing technology to do similar for Coal or Oil.

 

[Taffy Turner]

There is no existing technology to do similar for Coal or Oil.

I'm sorry - I don't follow you. Surely CO2 is the same no matter what source it came from. I don't understand why that produced by burning gas is any different to that produced by burning oil or coal, unless it is to do with particulates, but surely these could be filtered out?

Gary

 

[Steve Maskery]

Gary
The point is that if it is captured and stored it does not into the atmosphere,

Of course, being capturable is not the same thing as actually being captured.

And not not all CO2 is the same. Well it is chemically, of course, but, for example, CO2 which comes from the biodegradation of foliage which grew last season is part of the normal, current carbon cycle, whereas the stuff thats doing the damage is being dumped into a very small time window, when it is really part of a much longer-ago carbon cycle.

S

 

[MrJay]

There is no existing technology to do similar for Coal or Oil.

I'm sorry - I don't follow you. Surely CO2 is the same no matter what source it came from. I don't understand why that produced by burning gas is any different to that produced by burning oil or coal, unless it is to do with particulates, but surely these could be filtered out?

Gary

You'll be needing to ask someone with some actual technical knowledge. Getting the stuff out the ground is obviously significantly different - what the differences are between capturing CO2 from a gas fired and coal fired power stations I don't know - but the technology happens to be developed and practicable right now for Gas, but not for coal and oil.

 

[Taffy Turner]

I understand the difference in extracting gas, coal and oil, and I understand the distinction between short term carbon cycling and long term carbon release, but I have not come across anything to do with capturing CO2 from combustion - can anyone point me in the direction of some more information, as it is a subject of professional interest to me.

The point I was trying to make was that all forms of combustion release CO2, I just was curious why that produced by burning gas could be captured, whereas that produced by burning other forms of fossil fuel cannot.

As regards zero emission motor vehicles, most so called zero emission vehicles are nothing of the sort as they rely on electricity to charge their batteries, most of which is generated by burning fossil fuels. They only start to become viable if we can sort out a source of clean electricity - for example hydrogen fusion, solar, tidal etc.

Of course, the other factor to take into account is that of the embodied energy. This means that if something takes more energy to make than it will save during it's lifetime, then it is actually less environmentally friendly than doing nothing. I read an interesting report the other day, that calculated the embodied energy of a Toyota Prius, and when the energy consumed in building and disposing of the thing was taken into into account, they are actually less environmentally sound than most 4x4s when the entire life cycle is taken into consideration, rather than just the running cost in energy terms. Similarly another study by the BRE has found that these poxy little windmills sold by B+Q actually use more energy in their manufacture, distribution, fitting and disposal than 90% of them will generate during their lifetime. They are only worth fitting if you live in an exposed area - fitting one in an urban environment actually does more harm to the environment than doing nothing.

Sorry to get into rant mode, but this is a bit of a hobby horse of mine - politicians poking their noses into scientific areas without being in full possession of the facts, and thus promulgating misinformation. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Regards

Gary

 

[andycktm]

CO2 aside :roll: , i just hope they have got a reasonable clout behind them to get things moving
It just get's me angry when they (gov. and petrol companys) take the micky :evil:

 

[RogerS]

...... Would you trust Essex Trev in his CorsaSDXL-GT-4V-4X4 and bar (with fluffy dice) to do it safely?
.

No...but he'd only mess it up the once and just think what the improvements to the gene pool would be :twisted:

 

[RogerS]

....
If they are complaining about the tax on petrol then what would they (a) tax instead in order to keep the income to the exchequer the same or (b) what services would they cut to account for the lower income to the exchequer. Improving Civil Service efficiency is not a valid answer because you could do that anyway and the question would merely become what other taxes would you not reduce or what services would you not add/improve in order to reduce tax on petrol.

Andrew

Ooooh..can't let than one go unchallenged. You're making the assumption that the income that the exchequer needs is spent effectively ....as in about what, a dozen?, NHS re-organisations before the dust has settled on the last one? A war in Iraq?

 

[beech1948]

Repeat after me.

The Government is my enemy.
The Government is my enemy.
The Government is my enemy.

I am overtaxed. I am fined for non compliance for every thing.
The Government wates money but has an insatiable appetite.
Gov'mt TAX is now at about 53% of UK GDP and that is a scandle.

Any taxation which includes direct and indirect taxes should not exceed 30% of GDP.

Yet we the people don't insist that Gov'mt reduce taxation. D'oh!