Fuel!

[MrJay]

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

Sorry for the slowness of response, it's been a busy week. Regarding Carbon Capture both Wikipedia and Google will provide a wealth of information. There may be significant technical differences I'm not aware of (excepting mining the stuff, where the differences are plain to see), but I suspect most of it boils down to the Gas industries getting their R+D act together in a timely fashion, while Coal and Oil have not.

You'll get no argument from me regarding windmills; they need careful placement, sticking one willy-nilly on your house is as likely to save you money as it is to improve your reception for Channel 5 - assuming the lateral forces don't rip your gable end off. Solar, however, can be surprisingly useful.

The Dust to Dust study on the Prius on the other hand is pure and utter toss and has been roundly pilloried from here to Hollywood and back again. I could (Google does it better) remark on the lack of peer review, the cherry picked (and frankly misleading) statistics, bizarre assumptions, undisclosed methodology and sources or the simple fact that energy cost and environmental damage are entirely different things rendering the entire report idiotic anyway etc etc etc etc etc etc, but instead I'll simply copy the official company logo of the organisation responsible for the report below; which ought to tell you everything you need to know about their serious scientific credentials...

...classy.

The thing is, while government is an easy and often deserving target - they do actually have staff and expert advisers when it comes to 'scientific areas' and alerting them to 'the full facts' - something you and I do not and there's hell of a difference between peer reviewed science and the twaddle that gets popularly presented as research to you and me by the media. Assuming that you are in a better position to be aware of 'the full facts' because there was this thing on the internet/Daily Mail you read is likely to trip you up. And quickly. Not that I am aware of any politicians poking their noses into B&Q windmills or the environmental impact of the Toyota Pious.

On Electric Vehicles
Arguing that electric vehicles aren't clean because their electric charge is likely to have originated from fossil fuels is simplistic to the extent of being misleading.

Currently about 25% of the national grid is sourced from Nuclear or Renewables - already we have a significant improvement on the internal combustion engine.

Electric Vehicle drive-trains tend to be in the region of 5 - 10 times more efficient than the internal combustion engine equivalent. With this in mind, even if the electricity was entirely provided by way of fossil fuels, electric vehicles are suddenly in a different league regarding emissions.

Electric vehicles have the potential to become ever cleaner throughout their lifespan as the supply of electricity shifts from dirty to clean sources - petrol engined cars will forever remain a 'dirty' technology for their lifespan.

Jay

 

[Taffy Turner]

The thing is, while government is an easy and often deserving target - they do actually have staff and expert advisers when it comes to 'scientific areas' and alerting them to 'the full facts'
Jay

Jay, I'm not going to bother responding to your sermon, as frankly I can't be bothered, as to explain the flaws in your thinking would take too long.

However, as I chair a panel that does advise ministers on certain aspects of energy conservation (as it appertains to the window industry), and have first hand experience of dealing with politicians, I will merely observe that your innocence is touching. Politicians generally are ONLY concerned with keeping their jobs - i.e. not losing votes. Everything else is subservient to this aim - consequently they respond to pressure groups rather than expert advice.

Gary

 

[andrewm]

....
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-organizations before the dust has settled on the last one? A war in Iraq?

I would be one of the last people who assumes that government income is spent effectively, and I indicated so in the paragraph that you quoted. But that doesn't detract from the point I was making. You could indeed cut fuel duty and reduce the civil service to compensate. But you could equally make the same cuts in the civil service (or NHS reorganizations or nurses pay or anything else you can think of) and keep fuel duty the same but cut some other tax instead. That is a separate issue. So my question remains 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?

Andrew

 

[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-organizations before the dust has settled on the last one? A war in Iraq?

I would be one of the last people who assumes that government income is spent effectively, and I indicated so in the paragraph that you quoted. But that doesn't detract from the point I was making. You could indeed cut fuel duty and reduce the civil service to compensate. But you could equally make the same cuts in the civil service (or NHS reorganizations or nurses pay or anything else you can think of) and keep fuel duty the same but cut some other tax instead. That is a separate issue. So my question remains 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?

Andrew

I don't follow your line of reasoning at all. Where is there a link between cutting fuel duty and reducing civil service posts? My point is that the Govt spends money. They raise taxes to cover that (ignoring PFI as that's bag of nails). Agreed - if the expenditure is kept the same and you lower taxes in one area then you have to raise them in another. But....if you reduce the expenditure - as in don't renew Trident, don't invade Iraq, don't keep re-organising the NHS then you could reduce fuel tax and you would not have to raise taxes elsewhere.


On a slight tangent - having seen the price of the latest central heating oil - I have a gut feeling that it is cheaper now to heat our house by electric.

 

[andrewm]

I don't follow your line of reasoning at all. Where is there a link between cutting fuel duty and reducing civil service posts? My point is that the Govt spends money. They raise taxes to cover that (ignoring PFI as that's bag of nails). Agreed - if the expenditure is kept the same and you lower taxes in one area then you have to raise them in another. But....if you reduce the expenditure - as in don't renew Trident, don't invade Iraq, don't keep re-organising the NHS then you could reduce fuel tax and you would not have to raise taxes elsewhere.

Because it is essentially the same thing. Even if they are cutting expenditure cutting fuel taxes will be an alternative to cutting some other taxes. The fundemental argument is the same whether they are cutting expenditure or not.

Andrew

 

[MrJay]

The thing is, while government is an easy and often deserving target - they do actually have staff and expert advisers when it comes to 'scientific areas' and alerting them to 'the full facts'
Jay

Jay, I'm not going to bother responding to your sermon, as frankly I can't be bothered, as to explain the flaws in your thinking would take too long... I will merely observe that your innocence is touching.

Gary

Actually, I think it would be polite if you did.

 

[Digit]

Wind power generation is another example of brains being unnecessary to be a politician. Brown was stating last week that he was going to ring Britain with off shore wind mills to produce 33 Giga watts of power. Based on the Dutch experience that would cost about 50 BILLION pounds!
Even if it is done we could not use 33 Giga watts of wind generated power.
When the wind blows at the most efficient speed the Dutch have to export the vast majority, meantime keeping other generating stations on standby for when the wind drops.

Roy.