• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Not As Environmentally Friendly As Promised

Giant R said:
Someone I know bought an electric car recently and left it in the railway carpark when they went up to London for the day. When they left it it had 147 miles range on the battery but that evening when they got back in the range had dropped to 126 miles! I wonder what it would be like if you left it for a week in an airport carpark?
Click to expand...
Might be self discharge, or a change in ambient temperature....

...but, my earth killing fossil-fuel-mobile calculate range on the basis of the current mpg and fuel remaining - but the number it displays when I turn it off is generally not the same as the one when I turn it back on again the next day. My guess is that the calculation it makes on start-up is based on some default values, and it re-adjusts when I'm five miles down the road.

It might be the electric car does something like that.
 
Last edited:
MorningAngel said:
‘A company that has received billions of pounds in green energy subsidies from UK taxpayers is cutting down environmentally-important forests, a BBC Panorama investigation has found.’

Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348
Click to expand...
Amazing, they give away spend billions in tax-payers money subsidies converting Drax to burning wood and amazingly, it burns wood. I wonder what they thought would happen...?
 
I know - those whacky scamps at the Drax energy plant.
Getting public money for 'going green' while not actually doing it.
I love it how they claimed they ran on waste wood pellets and sawdust without actually saying they were investing in logging and sawmills and using the resultant sawdust. They are using waste ... just the waste they themselves produce.
Then the little tinkers claim that the trees they've cut down were dying and would 'encourage' forest fires.
 
MorningAngel said:
‘A company that has received billions of pounds in green energy subsidies from UK taxpayers is cutting down environmentally-important forests, a BBC Panorama investigation has found.’

Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348
Click to expand...
I just posted about this elsewhere.

Wait a minute....
So, burning 'green biomass' (wood pellets) releases more carbon than burning coal, but it's better than burning coal because new trees are planted that recapture the released carbon.
Are the eco-loonies being wilfully blind, or are they just stupid then?
Just burn coal, but continue planting trees.
Then over all less carbon will be released and there won't also be the massive amounts of pollution which comes from chopping down vast quantities of trees, drying them, pelletising them, and transporting them half way around the world.
 
Trevp666 said:
I just posted about this elsewhere.

Wait a minute....
So, burning 'green biomass' (wood pellets) releases more carbon than burning coal, but it's better than burning coal because new trees are planted that recapture the released carbon.
Are the eco-loonies being wilfully blind, or are they just stupid then?
Just burn coal, but continue planting trees.
Then over all less carbon will be released and there won't also be the massive amounts of pollution which comes from chopping down vast quantities of trees, drying them, pelletising them, and transporting them half way around the world.
Click to expand...
You said what I was about to say.
I'd rather we burned coal than chop down any more trees. Any CO2 we produce can either be sequestered using clean burn technology, or it can be soaked up by all the new trees we should be planting.
 
I saw an article yesterday (BBC website) saying that the research into the effects of traffic calming - 20 mph zones, extra cycle lanes, chicanes, etc was flawed and that thay actually added to congestion and therefore pollution etc. on other roads.

I only had time to read the headline but when I look again today and try a search I can find nothing. Has anyone else seen it?

I thought it was pretty obvious as there are a number of these schemes round here resulting in long queues and in one village they make it very difficult for pedestrians to even cross the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
Tunn11 said:
I saw an article yesterday (BBC website) saying that the research into the effects of traffic calming - 20 mph zones, extra cycle lanes, chicanes, etc was flawed and that thay actually added to congestion and therefore pollution etc. on other roads.

I only had time to read the headline but when I look again today and try a search I can find nothing. Has anyone else seen it?

I thought it was pretty obvious as there are a number of these schemes round here resulting in long queues and in one village they make it very difficult for pedestrians to even cross the road.
Click to expand...
The BBC does have a habit of burying things that conflict with their ongoing narrative.
 
Mythopoeika said:
You said what I was about to say.
I'd rather we burned coal than chop down any more trees. Any CO2 we produce can either be sequestered using clean burn technology, or it can be soaked up by all the new trees we should be planting.
Click to expand...
I think they are missing the point.
Alternatives to coal are being sought, not because of impact on carbon emissions but because of the limited fuel source. In the minds of many well-meaning folks, 'old' means of energy production are bad, end of. What needs to be done is to target why they are bad and then find an alternative that negates that badness.
With regards to nuclear energy, it has advantages and disadvantages, like all. It also has to contend with bad publicity and an association with weapons of mass destruction. In the early days, if more time and research was poured into it's safety rather than it's exploitation then I'm fairly sure it'd be far more acceptable these days.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no one solution - each means of energy supply should suit the conditions it's sited in. Thus, an island like ours should look more to geothermal, tidal and wave energy. Equatorial countries should concentrate on solar. Small, deserted islands could be turned into windfarms etc. There is no one single 'saviour' energy source.
If they come up with safe and reliable fusion generators, I'm sure public distrust would affect any government willing to use it.
 
Stormkhan said:
the limited fuel source.
Click to expand...
I have pointed out (somewhere) that estimates of coal available through already existing UK mines stand at about 30 years worth at the sort of consumption rates that were seen at our maximum usage periods, and estimates of geological coal deposits under the UK that could be extracted through new mining (if we wanted to) is likely to be around 300 years worth.
So hardly 'limited'.

Nuclear energy is already well advanced and treated as a 'green' energy in a lot of countries. The 'end of life' of nuclear power generators and the disposal of spent fuel is still an issue but it is being dealt with better now than it used to be.

Geothermal here is not accessible enough to make it viable.

Tidal and Wave energy really does need looking into with more vigour. We can predict tidal movements for decades in advance so it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to be able to create systems that can reliably produce power from it.

Fusion generators are the future. They're already getting to grips with the technology and some recent developments have begun to yield more energy out than they put in.
The recent announcement of (IIRC) official backing for a specific fusion generator to be built in Nottinghamshire can only be a good thing.
Fusion generators are not going to be beset with problems dealing with spent fuel like 'old style' reactors are. They are safe and just need to overcome the handling of the massive amounts of heat produced by the plasma by containing it properly, within powerful electromagnetic fields.
(I post updates on research into fusion generation in that specific thread)
 
Stormkhan said:
As far as I'm concerned, there's no one solution - each means of energy supply should suit the conditions it's sited in. Thus, an island like ours should look more to geothermal, tidal and wave energy. Equatorial countries should concentrate on solar. Small, deserted islands could be turned into windfarms etc. There is no one single 'saviour' energy source.
Click to expand...
That might be true, but in practical terms all intermittent renewables need to be backed up by the same capacity of base-load (gas, coal nuclear etc.). Otherwise power cuts are 100% in one's future. Plus, a decent proportion of the base-load needs to be able to respond near-instantaneously (that is, in somewhere around 2-8 minutes) to any sudden drop in supply caused by (for example) the sun going behind a cloud or the wind dropping.

Gas is generally the fastest reacting of the major base load generators. So a percentage of the base load needs to be carefully distributed gas fired power stations with a back-up of nuclear (or coal) that can take over in a more measured way over a longer time period.

Trevp666 said:
Nuclear energy is already well advanced and treated as a 'green' energy in a lot of countries. The 'end of life' of nuclear power generators and the disposal of spent fuel is still an issue but it is being dealt with better now than it used to be.
Click to expand...
In TV adverts for electricity suppliers 'nuclear' is already being described/included as 'green' or renewable. I take the positive view that someone (else) has run the numbers and knows we need nuclear power stations in the UK and fast.
 
The only problem with new reservoirs is that some people prefer to keep their houses above the waterline. Bloody selfish they are.
 
Trevp666 said:
The only problem with new reservoirs is that some people prefer to keep their houses above the waterline. Bloody selfish they are.
Click to expand...
Not to worry , with enough leaks and an increasing population they'll spend most of their time half empty anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my experience the Green Movement dont like things that resemble progress.
 
Trevp666 said:
Tidal and Wave energy really does need looking into with more vigour. We can predict tidal movements for decades in advance so it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to be able to create systems that can reliably produce power from it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. So why was the Severn Barrage stymied (8% of national requirement) and more recently the Swansea tidal barrage?
Mythopoeika said:
YES.
Click to expand...
Quite. Apart from anything else hydro from reservoirs can be ramped up quite fast so is useful for dealing with surges in demand.
 
Trevp666 said:
The only problem with new reservoirs is that some people prefer to keep their houses above the waterline. Bloody selfish they are.
Click to expand...
Well if it's good enough for a church....
Church_tower_at_Ladybower_Reservoir.png
 
I have always thought that if you want to charge more you have to first make it scares.


The last major public water supply reservoir to be constructed in the UK for water supply purposes was Carsington in 1991, and although a number of water supply reservoirs have been proposed since the 1960's very few have made it to completion.

The GMB union says companies have sold off 232 properties in England and Wales since 2017. These included 35 ex-reservoirs of which, the union estimates, 10 were in use until recently.
 
Coal said:
In TV adverts for electricity suppliers 'nuclear' is already being described/included as 'green' or renewable. I take the positive view that someone (else) has run the numbers and knows we need nuclear power stations in the UK and fast.
Click to expand...
And then we come into a quandary - we'd prefer to site nuclear power stations near water (check), not at danger of massive water surges such as tsunami (check) and away from earthquakes.
Ah.
If the current shower in charge have their way, the country will be dotted with fracking plants and any potential earthquakes are a price they think is worth us paying. So will we see punch-ups between the nuclear lobby and the fracking lobby, the former trying to build on land that the latter are making unsuitable?
 
Coal said:
Agreed. So why was the Severn Barrage stymied (8% of national requirement) and more recently the Swansea tidal barrage?
Click to expand...
Extensive research was carried out at great expense looking into the areas to be used, the engineering required, the costs involved, the environmental impacts, 'health and safety' analysis, 'risk assessments' and it was deemed that these tidal barrages were a good thing.
And then they were canned because of, er, 'politics' and/or 'nimbyism' AFAIK.
I would look it up, but I cant be arsed and I'm probably right.
 
Stormkhan said:
And then we come into a quandary - we'd prefer to site nuclear power stations near water (check), not at danger of massive water surges such as tsunami (check) and away from earthquakes.
Ah.
If the current shower in charge have their way, the country will be dotted with fracking plants and any potential earthquakes are a price they think is worth us paying. So will we see punch-ups between the nuclear lobby and the fracking lobby, the former trying to build on land that the latter are making unsuitable?
Click to expand...
In this context it's important to define 'earthquake' - the anti fracking lobby appears to be taking the view that an earthquake that has the vibration characteristics of a lorry going past your house is a 'we're all going to die' scenario.

To put that into context, earthquakes measuring less than 3.0 on the Richter Scale are rarely felt on the surface. A Richter Scale 1 tremor is 100 times lower in magnitude than 3.0.

Currently the UK limit on fracking related earthquake activity is 0.5 on Richter scale. This is laughable and is so unrealistic that it's either (a) deliberately designed to stop fracking as a policy, not on safety grounds or (b) the product of such staggering ignorance that we ought to be concerned about the competence of those making the decisions.

As an aside, nuclear reactors have very very good earthquake detection (why would anyone think they don't?) and are designed to automatically shut down when an earthquake is detected that threatens the integrity of the plant. That said I don't know the Richter scale number that constitutes a 'turning the reactor off event'.
:hoff:
 
Coal said:
To put that into context, earthquakes measuring less than 3.0 on the Richter Scale are rarely felt on the surface. A Richter Scale 1 tremor is 100 times lower in magnitude than 3.0.
Click to expand...
Yes the Richter Scale is a logarithmic scale, so a 2 is 10 times more powerful than a 1, and a 3 is 10 times more powerful than a 2, and so on.
However it isn't that simple. The 'energy release' of a 2 is 32 times more than a 1.
As you can see in this graph from USGS.
Also, remember that seismologists actually prefer to use the MMS (Moment Magnitude Scale) as it gives them a more accurate way of recording the power, size, depth and longitudinal movement of the tectonics involved, but for us common folk, the Richter Scale is an easier reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale
1664976913157.png
 
Trevp666 said:
Yes the Richter Scale is a logarithmic scale, so a 2 is 10 times more powerful than a 1, and a 3 is 10 times more powerful than a 2, and so on.
However it isn't that simple. The 'energy release' of a 2 is 32 times more than a 1.
As you can see in this graph from USGS.
Also, remember that seismologists actually prefer to use the MMS (Moment Magnitude Scale) as it gives them a more accurate way of recording the power, size, depth and longitudinal movement of the tectonics involved, but for us common folk, the Richter Scale is an easier reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale
View attachment 59605
Click to expand...
Nice. :hoff:

...so the 'fracking' Richter scale limit is possibly even sillier than I thought? Impressive. Sort of.
 
Well, 'tremors' from fracking is an altogether different thing than 'earthquakes' anyway.
If an HGV drives past your house and your glasses in the cocktail cabinet rattle, that's a similar effect as what happens when they do fracking - it's a radiant transmission of vibration from the drilling site and surrounding rock strata, at a shallow depth, not the movement of tectonic plates, that causes the effects.
 

Electric vehicles are exploding from water damage after Hurricane Ian​


A top Florida state official warned Thursday that firefighters have battled a number of fires caused by electric vehicle (EV) batteries waterlogged from Hurricane Ian.

EV batteries that have been waterlogged in the wake of the hurricane are at risk of corrosion, which could lead to unexpected fires, according to Jimmy Patronis, the state's top financial officer and fire marshal.

"There’s a ton of EVs disabled from Ian. As those batteries corrode, fires start," Patronis tweeted Thursday.

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/electric-vehicles-are-exploding-from-water-damage-after-hurricane-ian

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:

Electric vehicles are exploding from water damage after Hurricane Ian​


A top Florida state official warned Thursday that firefighters have battled a number of fires caused by electric vehicle (EV) batteries waterlogged from Hurricane Ian.

EV batteries that have been waterlogged in the wake of the hurricane are at risk of corrosion, which could lead to unexpected fires, according to Jimmy Patronis, the state's top financial officer and fire marshal.

"There’s a ton of EVs disabled from Ian. As those batteries corrode, fires start," Patronis tweeted Thursday.

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/electric-vehicles-are-exploding-from-water-damage-after-hurricane-ian

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Diesel vehicles are much, much safer.
 
Interesting (data based) article on how baseload grid systems works, and the reasons why solar PV and wind are going to struggle to provide more than a minor supplement to it.

The Penetration Problem. Part I: Wind and Solar – The More You Do, The Harder It Gets​


Increasing penetration levels of wind and solar is like a Sisyphean task, except that it is worse. The challenge may be better understood as akin to pushing a huge rock which is getting heavier and heavier, up a hill of a steeper and steeper slope while the ground below gets slicker and more unstable. The problems associated with increased penetration swamp any potential benefits that might be achieved through economies of scale.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10...and-solar-the-more-you-do-the-harder-it-gets/
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top