The joys of electric car ownership!

[Jacob]

Do you really think if Russia, North Korea or even China worked out how to use fusion and get all the energy they need that they would willingly just hand over the technology? Others might work it out in the following years from leaked information or their own research but I sincerely doubt we would be handing the technology to them if we work it out first either.

They'd have to if they wanted to survive Climate change. They may be totalitarian but they aren't necessarily stupid.
Mind you they'd make us pay.
They are doing it now with other technologies, investing in UK nuclear power and other stuff, even down woodwork tools - they aren't keep them just for their own use are they?

 

[Jacob]

They may make lots of things that would help,but they need to get them into use in their own country and soon.

They are doing and are now world leaders How China is implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

The nation has produced more greenhouse gases in the last thirty years than the UK has since the industrial revolution,as some of you may have noticed if you clicked on the link I posted a while ago.

They argue that they should be allowed to catch up and are still have lower carbon footprint than USA per capita.

Then they can sell to the next largest polluter,on the other side of the Pacific.It would have a far greater effect on the global climate than anything we can do.

True, but we are all in it together.

As for Jacob burning anything he can lay his hands on,I do hope it complies with the advice set out here: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1901291307_Ready_to_Burn_Web.pdf

Yep very aware of this. We do fast burn of small dry stuff for maximum efficiency, though this means more frequent loading. Got top marks from woodburner specialist who came to sweep the flue. Have also spent a fortune on insulation and really feel the benefit - it's a big chapel conversion and we EPC grade C even though still have single glazing.

 

[Jacob]

Ought to be an international project

It already is. IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[Jacob]

Like evidence of a seventy metre rise?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nding-the-answer-has-never-been-more-pressing

 

[TRITON]

"Do you really think if Russia, North Korea or even China"

Why do people always quote these 3 ?as it the entire problem is down to them alone.

China does indeed top the list, although they are producing much of the west's goods, so you would think the west shares the blame there.
Next on the list is the US. but nobody ever says the problem is China, the US, Russia. and North Korea.
The US's Co2 emissions are half that of China, but 4x less the population, so if the US was the same population, they'd top the list followed by India.

On the subject of North Korea, North Korea is 53rd down the list the UK is at 17, so its not fair to include NK
Other countries contribute more. We have India, Japan, Germany, Canada, Iran, none of whom ever get mentioned, but emit far more than NK. It's almost like its a Daily Mail witch hunt and we must always blame the problems of North Korea, Russia and China. who combined produce a 1/3 of co2 emissions. The US alone produces 1/6th.

 

[Jacob]

"..... It's almost like its a Daily Mail witch hunt and we must always blame the problems of North Korea, Russia and China. who combined produce a 1/3 of co2 emissions. The US alone produces 1/6th.

it's the Daily Mail answer to all problems; no need to do anything just decide who to blame.

 

[Lons]

He made the remark in response to an opinion about biomass, which is not the same as fossil fuel, as far as I know.

I feel no need to defend Jacob, but neither do I feel the need to persistently attack him or take his words out of context.

It wasn't out of context, the words speak for themselves and whilst the wood he's talking about is being saved from landfill it will release toxins into the atmosphere when burned, especially when much of it is likely to have been treated, old furniture, pallets, etc. I repeat, he said " You name it, I'll burn it "
Sounds pretty clear cut to me and though I understand why he does it it is rather counterproductive.

 

[Spectric]

there are huge skips full of scrap wood at the recycling centre

On its way to be transformed into MDF or shiete board.

 

[Spectric]

The problem in the west is that we don't agree with the Chinese way but not only do we want there goods but it is now a case of need them. America can see the chinese are the next biggest super power and don't like it but it is what it is. I look around and you just cannot avoid finding items made in China, they are now engrained in everything but don't think of Chinese goods as tack because they will deliver what we ask for and or willing to pay, you don't get into space without a certain level of ability.

Imagine if everything made in China just vanished into thin air, we would see naked / semi naked people, all sorts of vehicles stopped with missing parts, manufacturing stationary and probably all our services including internet not working with mobile phones without signals. But the Chinese will be the future of green technology, they realise you cannot just have a step change and have to wind down one fuel and ramp up the new so as not to have a massive impact on your people or economy, the issue being it is a race against time which they cannot control.

 

[TRITON]

On its way to be transformed into MDF or shiete board.

That would be nice but the truth is they burn it in the power stations now. Energy prob are so bad all bets are off and they're just burning all waste.

I suppose it makes a change from burying it.

 

[Agent_zed]

Why do people always quote these 3 ?as it the entire problem is down to them alone.

If you are referencing my post you have taken this out of context. My statement was to do with the sharing of technology (in this case Fusion), nothing to do with the amount of pollution/emmissions by those countries.

If the UK worked out fusion and had a lovely plant creating free energy, would we give it to North Korea? No, I cannot feasibly see us doing that. And visa versa.

As for using those as the examples it's not really that odd considering Russia is currently bombing a European neighbour, North Korea is developing nuclear weapons and firing missiles over Japan, and China is eyeing up various territories including Taiwan.

The idea that we'd all just get along and share something for the good of the planet is laudable but highly doubtful given everything we currently know about the human race.

 

[TRITON]

If you are referencing my post you have taken this out of context.

Nope, just using those 3 as the example instead of typing it out myself, hence not quoting you directly.

 

[MikeJhn]

So what happens to the void in the earths crust when the oil is abstracted, I assume they fill it with water which will go someway to preventing the sea from rising, so to prevent this we must keep using oil.

 

[John Brown]

It has to make you laugh when one of the most vocal among us decrying the use of fossil fuels posts this

You were comparing fossil fuels with biomass/waste wood. It's there in black and white in your post, for anyone to see.

 

[Spectric]

If the UK worked out fusion and had a lovely plant creating free energy, would we give it to North Korea? No,

Fusion has no use in weapons unlike fission so no risk there and because we all share the atmosphere then in order to survive we need to clean up our act and that has to include everyone including Korea so sharing the tech would also be advantagous to us but not if corporate greed gets involved when making money and not saving the planet takes precedence.

 

[Jacob]

That would be nice but the truth is they burn it in the power stations now. Energy prob are so bad all bets are off and they're just burning all waste.

I suppose it makes a change from burying it.

Burning it at home in a woodburner for direct room heat must have lowest carbon footprint as it cuts out all the middlemen processes and infrastructure. Also not technology or power dependent and if the worst came to the worst you can always scout around for something to burn. Maybe get into firelighting with flints etc so not dependent on supplies of ***-lighters either!

 

[Jacob]

It wasn't out of context, the words speak for themselves and whilst the wood he's talking about is being saved from landfill it will release toxins into the atmosphere when burned, especially when much of it is likely to have been treated, old furniture, pallets, etc. I repeat, he said " You name it, I'll burn it "
Sounds pretty clear cut to me and though I understand why he does it it is rather counterproductive.

Counter productive of what? It produces carbon neutral energy. If they are there in the first place it releases toxins wherever it goes, they might as well go up my chimney!
But is this really is an issue? It isn't clear. Most likely not, most of the time.
If it is, then the thing to do would be to ban the toxins in the first place, so the wood could be safely burned or dumped.

 

[rafezetter]

So a doubling in efficiency is not a note worthy change in 20 years? Certainly the change in emissions in that same time has been very marked. If EV double the range or halve the weight in the next 20 years that’s a pretty significant improvement towards making them very viable and incidentally a 1000Km range becomes viable.
The point is there is now an incentive to solve the battery density problem and a lot of people are now investing in research as there is money to be made.

I didn't say it wasn't noteworthy, what I meant was it's not the "eureka" moment EV evangelists claim it to be. Efficiency and design are two different things. My take on what you wrote was you were claiming the engine and technology had changed in a way that could be considered significant. It hasn't.

Valves, ports, cylinders, pistons etc etc, all the same as they were close to 100 years ago.

The 767 planes of today use the same principles of engineering the Wright brothers used. The materials have changed, the propulsion has changed, the efficiency has changed - the basic design has not.

Halving the weight - well unless they can sort out the heat dissipation problem smaller chemical batteries will produce while stationary, it's all moot. Can't make the car out of aluminium for safety purposes - carbon fibre while stronger is ludicrously expensive, so you're stuck with steel and the obsession with SUV sized vehicles for no good bloody reason other than the stupid belief they are safer, until it hits another SUV, or the driver is more reckless because they think they are in a tank.

Chemistry is chemistry and the only way to get a more energetic reaction and release of energy is to use more volatile chemistry, and we've gone full circle back to exploding batteries.

Chemistry is not a new science and there's little if any "new" ways to make a chemical reaction, so unless they find a new element to mess around with - I think we're not going to be making any big leaps in chemical batteries anytime soon.

I think the EV system is a dead end for widespread domestic use let alone industrial haulage etc, both technologically and infrastructure wise - the world has a power shortage as it is and pretty sure I read there was talk of rationing power in some places even more than already happens with "brown outs".

If I was a venture capitalist I'd be putting money into hydrogen power research. Simpler, cheaper, plentiful, zero infrastructure changes thus saving the planet TRILLIONS, and energetic enough to power planes and large shipping.

 

[Jacob]

.....

If I was a venture capitalist I'd be putting money into hydrogen power research. Simpler, cheaper, plentiful, zero infrastructure changes thus saving the planet TRILLIONS, and energetic enough to power planes and large shipping.

Unfortunately venture capitalism is the primary cause of the whole problem (and a lot of others!!). And it's too late.
If I was Minister for Transport I'd probably look at rail, tram, trolly, where power is picked up from rails or wires, with exchangeable batteries for standby uses or short journeys. Tried and tested technology.
Only the state can handle the scale of what is needed, in terms of new infrastructure and the wind-down of a massive but obsolescent motor industry.

 

[Fergie 307]

Fusion has no use in weapons unlike fission so no risk there and because we all share the atmosphere then in order to survive we need to clean up our act and that has to include everyone including Korea so sharing the tech would also be advantagous to us but not if corporate greed gets involved when making money and not saving the planet takes precedence.

Hydrogen bomb, think you will find that is a fusion device, and much more powerful than a fission bomb.