John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I think most people knew that.
Khan's ULEZ scam >road charging
- Thread starter Homeless Squirrel
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Agent_zed
Established Member
a lot of the opec countries are switching as fast as possible. Saudi Arabia is heavily pushing tourism and trying to become a destination. My take on it - because they know they are running out of time/oil. If the west can switch to their own renewable energy then what is somewhere like Saudi going to do otherwise?
They haven't just had a staff day to a forest and decided to change their business model to feel all warm and fuzzy.
They haven't just had a staff day to a forest and decided to change their business model to feel all warm and fuzzy.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
I read the other day that the world is approaching "Peak Oil" and it is likely to tail off rapidly from the end of this decade. Hardly surprising then that Big Oil is looking for what to be investing in next.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Homeless Squirrel
Established Member
Others mentioning about oil companies.
Knew about them investing in Renewables a long time ago well before anyone outside that industry knew!
Knew someone deep in that business and got to know lot's that are not public knowledge.
Likewise..( schoolmate very high up in one , since retired ) so you also know why the shift, but also why the continued "exploration"..
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
If they are investing there isn't much to show for it!
Probably putting more effort into climate change denial propaganda. They've known about climate change from a long way back - they could not ignore the science but they could try to cover it up.
Instead they are just hanging on as long as possible maximising profits while the going is good.
That's how it was with asbestos and tobacco - they knew people were dying from years ago. At least they weren't wrecking the whole planet, just a few million deaths from asbestosis etc and lung cancer, every year.
Last edited:
How is road charging a scam?
Homeless Squirrel
Established Member
The Big tech is in Batteries/Storage now
Agent_zed
Established Member
This is where I hope they find something env friendly quickly as I don't believe switching to EV in it's current form is a good idea. Whatever Mr Musk says Teslas are in no way env friendly and are just luxury/excutive cars with a load of greenwashing.
In the industrial sector 'sand batteries' seem to be a very interesting proposition. Where you store massive amounts of heat in sand until you need it.
The trouble with a lot of these things is that anything that threatens big corp tends to be bought out and mothballed unless they can make more money from it. Happens in the tech world all the time with big players buying almost unknown apps for large amounts so they don't create competition.
People complain the government are scamming them, whilst happily buying off companies like amazon who is systematically destroying local businesses so Bezos can build nob rockets, whilst paying little to no tax in the uk.
Oil exploration.
We will always need oil for industry, for chemicals, for plastics and by that route clothing and other personal household good or for, medicines and that industry that we cannot replicate synthetically.
We have synthetic oils for lubrication, but its likely that we'll also need fossil fuel oils for much the same.
Fuels to run large industry engines, like the ones on the big ships, cargo and pleasure.
So we'll always need it and have a use for it and as far as im aware, we've hardly touched the surface, with undiscovered oil fields either too small to make large scale production possible, or in areas difficult to drill/mine/etc
Climate change.
By cutting a populations use of fossil fuel, you take out 80% of the causes of climate change. So to continue using said oil in industry and everything mentioned above, and to follow international guidance on climate problems, something is going to have to give, and its going to be people cars as the lowest common denominator.
As such the government is going to need people to buy E-cars, use public transport more, walk or cycle.
But the public are reluctant as these things mean a financial outlay or simply even the inconvenience of it, so would prefer not to make any change. As such the governments only option is to force change. And thats what these schemes are all about.
We will always need oil for industry, for chemicals, for plastics and by that route clothing and other personal household good or for, medicines and that industry that we cannot replicate synthetically.
We have synthetic oils for lubrication, but its likely that we'll also need fossil fuel oils for much the same.
Fuels to run large industry engines, like the ones on the big ships, cargo and pleasure.
So we'll always need it and have a use for it and as far as im aware, we've hardly touched the surface, with undiscovered oil fields either too small to make large scale production possible, or in areas difficult to drill/mine/etc
Climate change.
By cutting a populations use of fossil fuel, you take out 80% of the causes of climate change. So to continue using said oil in industry and everything mentioned above, and to follow international guidance on climate problems, something is going to have to give, and its going to be people cars as the lowest common denominator.
As such the government is going to need people to buy E-cars, use public transport more, walk or cycle.
But the public are reluctant as these things mean a financial outlay or simply even the inconvenience of it, so would prefer not to make any change. As such the governments only option is to force change. And thats what these schemes are all about.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
It's what governments have to do, especially in an emergency.
Yes, and nothing exceptional about that.
What seems to be upsetting those who object is that they simply don't believe or understand the issues. Well lets face it, it is a bit of a shocker; the end of the world as we know it.
The sooner people get the idea the quicker action can be taken if it isn't too late already.
niall Y
Established Member
Surely Mr Kahn's mandate is to protect the good citizens of London from harmful emissions, not to save the world.
The question was asked earlier about whether the charge was a scam. The answer to this will depend on on the outcome. If it is going to reduce emissions and achieve what is desired, then it isn't a scam. If the end result is little reduction in emissions then it could certainly be seen as such.
I'm surprised that he has been allowed to proceed with such a scheme, given that the government must be thinking along similar lines for the whole country, as they are going to be losing revenue from fuel tax. The cynic in me thinks that they might be using him to gauge public reaction. Even if he is successful I can't see that he will be able to keep the revenue as the government will need it to fill, what is set to become, an ever expanding gap in their finances
The question was asked earlier about whether the charge was a scam. The answer to this will depend on on the outcome. If it is going to reduce emissions and achieve what is desired, then it isn't a scam. If the end result is little reduction in emissions then it could certainly be seen as such.
I'm surprised that he has been allowed to proceed with such a scheme, given that the government must be thinking along similar lines for the whole country, as they are going to be losing revenue from fuel tax. The cynic in me thinks that they might be using him to gauge public reaction. Even if he is successful I can't see that he will be able to keep the revenue as the government will need it to fill, what is set to become, an ever expanding gap in their finances
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yes of course. But the global issues are linked inevitably.
Of course it isn't!
Probably no coincidence that traffic congestion, pollution, air quality, are worse in London than anywhere else. Similar measures are being considered elsewhere UK and cities all over the globe.
The only surprising thing is that anybody should be surprised! The idea of it being "a scam" is ludicrous and rather childish.
Paranoia.
I would think all modern petrol engines cars are compliant and tend to do fewer miles to the gallon than diesels, so not sure what the impact on tax revenues will actually be. Even my 20year old Jeep is compliant, and it's a 4litre, nothing to do with engine size but emissions control. Don't know how true it is but it is said that if you drives modern petrol vehicle through the streets of many cities the exhaust could be cleaner than the air going in!
RobinBHM
Established Member
Ironically to switch to renewables we need to increase extraction of raw materials from the ground than ever.
it reauires colossal amounts of copper
A single wind turbine needs upto 4.7 tons of copper
it reauires colossal amounts of copper
A single wind turbine needs upto 4.7 tons of copper
Absolutely not what my mate who owns a french equivalent of an MOT test centre tells me..Whether what comes out the exhaust is "compliant" has more to do with the year of manufacture ( and the category the car is in ) than the emissions.."Modern/ recent" can push out identical figures to older..modern is considered compliant if the car is recent and the manufacturer got it into the "right category"..Same applies even if modern is pushing out 3 to 5 times emissions of older, as long as the manufacturer got it accepted in a category that allows for that level of emissions.
Your jeep is "compliant", but is probably pushing out 2 to 3 times ( or more ) as much as a smaller engined vehicle, but is "compliant" because the admissible figures for a 4 litre are higher than those for a 1 litre..You are still on EU regs..and that is how they work..as my mate says.."smoke and mirrors" with a lot of smoke from big engines and or recent motors that they see, ( the test and control centres ) but are told "it passes", give it the "clean sticker"..Here they call it "critair", a this years model can be pushing 5 times more pollutants than a 20 year old model, the new one gets the "clean / critair " sticker and can go where the owner wants to.
ps..I'd avoid Paris* ( and a lot of other french cities ) if I were you..you'd get a fine just because of the age of your vehicle..they'd not be interested in it's actual emissions, just the age.
* there are other really good reasons to avoid Paris, not least because it is full of Parisians.. a few less at this time of year , because unfortunately they have invaded places like where we live. A soon as the weather is good, we are invaded by Parigots.
Last edited:
Agree to some extent, but there are all sorts of anomalies, and you are absolutely right that it should be judged by what comes out of the pipe. My other Jeep, also a 4 litre, runs on LPG. It has far better emissions than most petrol cars, including the other one, but is not compliant?? LPG is a good example where a trick has maybe been missed. You used to be able to get a grant from the government towards the cost of conversion, and I think reduced tax. Not for a long time. And yet most cars can be converted at a reasonable cost, less than buying a new car. It's much cleaner and so might be a good halfway house for the transition between ICE and EV. I agree with previous posts that there ought be be little need for a personal car on a day to day basis in a modern city. Of course this requires good, and affordable, public transport, not something we are particularly good at. It would also be fairly straightforward to eliminate non electric delivery vehicles, buses and taxis from the city. I certainly wouldn't object to tax incentives to help with the cost of the change for the operators. In the longer term we also need to think about the future of our car industry as a whole, not just manufacturing. EV require less maintenance and far fewer spare parts than an ICE vehicle. Many jobs in these support industries will disappear as EV take over. This isn't a reason against the change, simply something that needs some thought. Unfortunately it seems that, like climate change in general, these issues aren't being addressed with anything like the necessary urgency.
Interestingly enough if you look at both the ULEZ and EU emissions requirements, as far as I can see they are in fact absolute figures, expressed in g/km. There does not appear to be any distinction regarding engine size. My LPG Jeep is actually compliant with Euro 5 standard when running on gas, so far better than required to meet ULEZ. Of course it didn't leave the factory that way and so is listed as not compliant. The other issue is that all these things are based on figures from sample vehicles submitted for approval by the manufacturer, has nothing to do with the vehicles actual emissions. If it is badly maintained or faulty it could massively exceed the design figure, and yet still officially be compliant. And of course we all know the history of the various shenanigans engaged in by numerous manufacturers to falsify the results of testing for diesels.
Agent_zed
Established Member
And what is the amount used by conventional power stations? I've done a quick search and cannot find a figure. The cynical part of me might think there is a reason that it is not promoted so readily.
Agent_zed
Established Member
Did a bit more searching and found this Estimated quantities of materials contained in a 1000-MW(e) PWR power plant (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV which evaluates a 1000mw PWR (pressurised water reactor) nuclear power station.
Page 9 has a list of values for various metals.
For a 1000mw it requires 694 tons of copper (there is also brass and bronze listed separately but I haven't included in the following maths)
Hopefully my maths is correct as I am terrible at it.
So per MW a PWR requires - 694/1000 = 0.694 tons per MW
A 3MW wind turbine requires - 4.7/3 = 1.56 tons per mw
so per MW wind turbines require just over half as much as a conventional nuclear power station.
If you look at the list of metals for a PWR you'll also see things like 2080 tons of stainless steel which requires nickel and chromium, 46tons of lead, 18tons of aluminium, 10 tons of Brass, 25 tons of Bronze.
The difference between the 2 being that with wind you need no additional energy/material input once it's created other than maintenance. When it is decommissioned you can re-use the copper. I would guess a smaller amount can be recycled out of a nuclear plant as it will be contaminated or too risky to remove.
- Status
