If it occurs to people that it may not be legal to drive petrol cars at some point in future there may be a lot who think 'now or never' and buy a thirsty V8 lol.
nah too much money to be made from PEZ and Derv they'll milk that cow dry..
Symes wrote:
What everyone seems to forget ---- how much damage to environment just getting metal for batteries And when old - what to do with old batteries Also they probably cost more than vehicle would be worth ----- I'd stick to old petrol engine and make alcohol to run it on like biofuel
You're right about battery manufacture, and there is still debate as to whether even electric cars are the long term future, but it seems that the debate has been settled in the medium term. We WILL all be driving electric cars within 20-30 years, the decision has been made. The good news is that Tesla batteries are heading towards 300,000 miles per pack now (with a warranty varying from 100,000miles / 8years up to 150,000miles / 8years depending on model) and the current Tesla3 is (allegedly) meant to be a million-mile car, assuming you replace the batteries 3-4 times during its life.
However, it does seem that the environmental cost of battery manufacture is being considered and there is still debate about Hydrogen being the long-term fuel choice since it can at least be used, transported, and stored in a similar way to fossil fuels. Well, more like LPG than petrol. The bottom line is that governments are now genuinely shitting themselves about global warming caused by greenhouse gasses. Even the Chinese - the world's biggest polluters - are signing up for real change which is a sign that this isn't just a load of bollox dreamt up by some sandal wearing hippies. In the grand scheme of things, a few thousand people dying of Cadmium poisoning, or a few lakes killed off by lithium mining isn't a big deal if it saves 1 degree of global warming. Hell, things are so desparate that we're back to building nuclear power plants as fast as possible, simply because they produce less CO2 than Natural Gas. Remember, Uranium has a half life of 400 million years - that's the sort of environmental debt that the world's leaders are now prepared to take on in order to get us away from the immediate threat of global warming. 2050 is going to be an interesting year for those of us who make it.
stop worrying about the environment, their is no amount of carbon that will hurt you or the trees or the animals , its been at the levels they say are devastating to planet many times before . if the levels get to low the trees will stop growing along with your food , think about that for a second . then ask yourself where all the copper and the lithium is going to come from, there's is not enough in the world to do what they want so its not going to happen . the governments will loose all the revenue from fuels and the car industry itself. the worlds economy has been built on the car industry for the last 70 odd years or more and that is not going to change. there is something like 22000 parts to a petrol car and are made all over the place , electric cars don't have anywhere near that amount of parts so no employment in parts or spares as the consumables are not their
when ever a politician says we will change the rules if that statement is not in their elected period its very unlikely that its going to happen as the next lot will just change the date to suit their agenda , to the next elected period. just like Biden in the US in the next 10 years, he can only hold office for 8 years so its not going to be his problem, seen to be doing something but doing nothing on purpose. thats my 2 cent rant, sick of the lies and bullshit that are being pushing , ask yourself where is the money going and to hoom
mad-as, sorry mate but you need to educate yourself. Here's a start.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/global-warming-real
I think one point that seems to being missed is that these days car manufacturers treat cars as white goods with a design life of 10 years. So disposing of the batteries is only one part of it, it's also the manufacture of the new batteries for the new cars. Some research done a few years ago, when the Carbon footprint thing first started being looked at it was found that the car with the lowest end to end carbon footprint was the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow. Yes, it uses a lot to build but was built so well that it lasted such a long time and when it reached the end of it's life, virtually all of it was recycled or reused.
So they should be thanking us for keeping our cars going for 20+ years......
Yes, absolutely - but let's be clear. The vast majority of new cars are sold on lease to people who replace them after 3 years, and probably do the same with their white goods. These vehicles are not only wasteful at build time, but they run on fossil fuels. If we can keep a P38 running 20+ years, we're probably looking at 50% of the build "cost" of your average econobox that lasts 8 years on average. (econoboxes generally being smaller and the modern ones have to make at least a nod towards being made of recyclable materials).
However, the short term issue (by global standards) is CO2, NOx and other greenhouse gases - and it seems that governments are absolutely prepared to make compromises on other forms of pollution to escape climate change caused by greenhouse gases. The cost isn't really an issue either when the alternative is disruption to weather, crop growth and rising sea levels that will have economic implications that dwarf the cost of changing to a carbon neutral economy.
I'm happy to drive my P38 and Jeep on LPG, but I don't hold out much hope for it being viable for much longer. The LPG garages are closing and the end of sales of fossil-fueled cars has been announced - it's only going one way. Vehicles will still be sold on lease to the sort of people who really really value what it says on their number plate - but they'll all be electric and they won't produce CO2 while they're being driven.
Morat wrote:
mad-as, sorry mate but you need to educate yourself. Here's a start.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/global-warming-real
so you have a different view Morat that's a good thing because it makes people talk about the real issues . sorry i can't look at the item you posted , i have to register to read it , not interested in the rubbish that comes with that . you didn't say which part you was not happy with did i tell a lie if so point it out so i can fact check it please.
the problem with the environmentalists is you are not allowed to challenge any of it as you will be attacked personally because they don't have the answers to the questions . its all been so over exasperated that the truth is a distant thing . if the environment was in such a delicate state why is Elon Musk firing rockets into space ever other day knowing that he is destroying the ozone layer and not a word from the environmentals
we do have real issues in the world but carbon is not one of them.
Ok.. well I didn't have to register to watch the video, just refuse a few cookies.
In any event, Carbon on its own isn't the issue. Carbon Dioxide is the problem because it is a greenhouse gas - ie releasing lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere increases global temperature because CO2 helps trap energy from the sun. There are plenty of other greenhouse gases, possibly the most worrying being Methane.
Oil, Coal and Gas (fossil fuels) are made from ancient living creatures that died in large numbers and were rotted down together to form large reserves of energy rich fuels. Life on Earth is based on carbon, so the fossil fuels are carbon-rich and burning them produces CO2. This then goes up into the atmosphere and does its greenhouse gas thing, increasing the average temperature of the Earth each year.
Looking back in time we can take the Jurassic era as an example. CO2 levels were much higher than now. But, the earth cooled as all that carbon was captured by prehistoric plants who breathed it in, turned it into biomass, and then in turn were either compressed into coal after they died or eaten by dinosaurs* who rotted down into oil and gas. Now we're releasing all the captured carbon once more and - hey presto - global temperatures are back on the rise.
OK, the earth has cooled and heated in the past - but it has done it very slowly and life has adapted to follow the changes. We're just burning stuff, and the current changes in temperature appear to be faster than any the Earth has seen before which is going to make it very hard for life to adapt fast enough to cope.
One extra fun fact is that the hotter the earth gets, the higher the sea levels rise because the polar ice caps melt. In the Jurassic, sea temps at the equator are estimated to have been up to 30C. At the current rate, the sea is rising at 3.3mm per year.
You don't need to register to see this link from NASA
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/sea-level-rise-2020/
*well, it more likely that it was plankton and other tiny sea creatures who formed the oil reserves when they died and fell down into sediments at the bottom of the sea but there were probably some big marine dinosaurs in there too.
At the risk of moving this thread in a direction rather far from the original title I feel that the whole issue of global warming is being driven, like all sensitive issues, away from the real problem - there are just far too many people on the earth, I think that it currently around 7.8 billion.
I don't understand people like David Attenborough banging on about the Amazon forest being destroyed [which it is, and has been for over 30 years], the Big Five animals in Africa being killed off, and the River Ganges becoming toxic but he never, ever makes the point that there are far too many people trying to use up the earth's resources. The populations of Indonesia, India, and China are exploding, and the people all want what we, in the West, already have.
But even Europe has too large a population. And that's what drives trade - more people, more products wanted. So burn down the Amazon forest to raise more and more cattle, kill of all the tigers and elephants in India so that the massively over-crowded cities can keep expanding, and the same in Africa.
Telling the world that there are too many of us is as bad as saying that diesel is not bad for us, after all !! Would you believe that the population of the UK in the 1700's was only 5 million, a long way from the current 64 million.
Sorry for the re-direction of the thread 😅.
Pierre3.
And my sister lives 50 yards from the River Dee and they keep markers for high tides particularly when we have storms the last big one in 2013 . They are rare events and we still did not get even close to being flooded. If anything the sea levels are dropping where once we could get out on our boats on a 28ft tide now its barely possible and 29 ft is the norm. So if any global warming experts want to come down here I can prove to them sea levels are dropping not rising. Just more scaremongering
Heavens above, that Thunberg is snotty, squealy little git, I do dislike her. Trying to tell people how to live their lives and the little weasel is still in school.
Let's ban everything from Brazil and China instead, and manufacture it all in the UK - where it used to be done !
Pierre3.
There are firms removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and splitting hydrogen from water, to produce pure hydrocarbon fuel that is almost drop-in compatible with conventional (petrol / diesel / aircraft fuel) fuels.. All it takes is energy (electricity) and it is as carbon neutral and clean as the electricity that was used to produce it. Perhaps there will always be a supply of fuel for ice's even if/when they become a niche.
https://energypost.eu/extract-co2-from-our-air-use-it-to-create-synthetic-fuels/
I have read quite a bit about using hydrogen and it really annoys me that all the clap-trap waffle is about electric vehicles. I just really, really wish a large company would push the idea of using hydrogen in our vehicles, instead of the flat earth tossers constantly bleating on about how electricity is the only alternative source of power after petrol and diesel.
By the way, did I mention that I really, really, really dislike the whingey little spanner Thunderberg - sorry, Thundberg or whatever her name is.
Pierre3.
hi, sorry for pushing this button again. i personally don't listen to the tripe that comes from the media its all left wing usually and not the truth just someones opinion , its hard to find the truth so i don't look anymore . our coal in Aust came from furns not animals , so thats news to me , thanks for pointing that out . as for the temps and the seas rising they have been doing that since forever 10,000 yrs ago you could walk from Tasmania to the mainland and not get your feet wet now its 50 meters deep, that happened 10,000 yrs ago not the other day so what did the humans have to do with that , way before the industrial era . considering that the industrial era started because of population exploded because man finally worked out how to preserve food for the winter i would be more inclined to go with Pierre on that one, as population is a real issue that is not even a part of the argument when it comes to these issues. simple, more people more of everything to accommodate more co2 , less people less co2, that's a mathematical equation so its a real issue . also if you cover the surface of the earth with solar cells once again you are warming the surface bye default as the cells hold heat , in other words warm up the area they are in , if you have seen infra red pictures of these areas you would know what i am on about . once again its not spoke off because its not in their favor . wind turbines are another issue that they just brush over ,the power from them is almost useless unless they feed a battery bank , you can not feed power into a grid that fluctuates , it just dosn't work and then there is the wild life that all this is supposed to protect . last year we lost 6 eagles to the turbines , that dosn't sound much but we only have 1200 or so left , they class this as natural attrition . if i had my way they would never turn again not suitable for hear but the scare campaign is so out of control that people have lost the truth . i my opinion most of the problems start with the letter P
population
politicians
profits , both monetary and biblical
plastics
pollution
deal with these issues and most of the other problems will disappear
no one has changed there behavior in relation to co2 anyway so its time to learn to live with it and stop fighting a loosing battle, if its a real thing only time will tell and in all honesty none off us know the real truth!
PS Mr Bolt dose have some good comments but sometimes its a bit off side so to speak, but he dose try to keep it honest, puts both sides up for comment so you can make your own decision on whats right which is what should happen not just one side and deny the other.
I'm not saying this as a point against climate change because I do believe man is at least partly responsible for it... But it's a bit ironic that throughout school people of my age (50) were told that the Earth was headed for another ice age and were shown statistics/ graphs to back that up lol! The main concern about fossil fuels back then wasn't climate change, it was because it led to acid rain and deforestation, general air pollution was demonstrated by showing us pics of silver birch trees growing in clean air areas versus black silver birch trees growing in dirty air areas.
10000 Years ago could walk through 'Doggerland' from the UK to mainland Europe and man wasn't responsible for the English channel but we have probably helped make it a bit deeper...
Lpgc wrote:
But it's a bit ironic that throughout school people of my age (50) were told that the Earth was headed for another ice age and were shown statistics/ graphs to back that up lol!
I remember being told the very same thing and 15 years prior to you so that theory lasted for quite some time. But, it's like many other things, experts tell us what is good for us or the planet until another bunch of experts come along and tell us something different. They decided to remove lead from petrol as it was alleged to cause retarded brain development in children. They seemed to ignore the fact that most paints in use at that time were lead based and children do have a habit of putting things in their mouth so while some of the lead could have, and probably did, come from exhaust fumes, it wasn't the only source. Removing the lead meant they had to use chemical additives instead but when they were burnt, all sorts of nasty things came out of the exhaust so the answer to that was to fit catalytic converters that turn all the nasty toxins into nice harmless Carbon Dioxide. It must be harmless right? It's what we breath out and the trees then turn it back into Oxygen. Suddenly, CO2 is the bad boy as it will cause global warming, so everyone is encouraged to buy a diesel as they produce less. The experts are happy, CO2 output from road vehicles is reducing but Oh No, there's all this other stuff that diesels produce, NOx, particulates, etc, so now they are the spawn of the Devil. At the moment it is electric vehicles that are the saviour of the world but how long before sufficient experts tell us that the Lithium mining to produce the batteries is doing untold harm to the planet and their view is taken on board? There is already concern about disposal of end of life batteries.
So at the moment EVs are the way everyone is being pushed towards but despite the proposed ban on new ICE powered vehicles from 2030 or 2035 or whenever the Government of the day announces, why are manufacturers still developing and producing hybrids which will be affected by the same ban? Could it be that they are just hedging their bets and waiting for the next bunch of experts to overturn what is the accepted solution at the moment?
We seem to have got way off topic on this thread, but it's interesting none the less.
I also agree that the underlying issue in all of this is the huge increase in population. As an example, India has gone from 382m population in 1950 to 1.393Bn now. An increase of 1bn people in just one country!
However, there's no rational way to reduce the world's population in time to save it from global warming short of mass kilings. So, the pragmatic decision has been made - get carbon neutral asap.
This involves a lot of sacrifice, including ICE vehicles, eagles being killed by windfarms, large areas of countryside polluted by battery production, and probably in the near future the cost of international travel is going to go through the roof.
You may have noticed a marked reluctance to bail out airlines that are being decimated by Covid. I suspect that's because airlines will soon have to be culled anyway as airliners burn tonnes of oil an hour. Battery-powered airliners are just about feasible, but horribly expensive.
The penny dropped for me when I realised that the governments really don't care about pollution right now, it's Global Warming that they're shitting themselves over and that's why huge areas of the North Sea are now wind farms and EVs are being pushed so hard despite the fact that Hydrogen could provide a much smoother changeover. It is easier to transport than Electricity and it can be burnt in traditional petrol engines or used to power EVs using a fuel cell at much greater efficiency. BUT it isn't ready yet, and EVs pretty much are. And hey, we can swap from batteries to fuel cells in EVs at a later date. Maybe.
As for the sea levels, the link upthread explains why you see local drops in sea level. It's a really cool web page.
I don’t think battery powered airlines are anywhere close to feasible yet, not until the weight of batteries comes way down. A local charter airline has a couple of DeHavilland Beavers converted to electric power. I think the payload is one passenger and the range 20 minutes before needing a 1/2 hour charge. We’ll probably get there, but not yet.