Ban on new petrol and diesel cars in UK from 2030 under PM's green plan

[trummy]

Guess the bottom line is we are heavily over populated - Cannot expect Bo Jo to lead from the front though when he has knocked out six.
Energy is one problem, getting enough food in the future is potentially another.

Hope you did not take offence at my last little quip Magistrate certainly none intended. - I still have not come to terms with the BiL future acquisition. I rather suspect that he perceives it will save him money long term, and he fancies the ridiculous acceleration the thing can achieve.

 

[user 43495]

My point was: the last time there was a catastrophic climate change the dominant vertebrates on the planet didn’t survive.

The difference in our case is that we can see it coming, and know how to stop it.

I am fully aware of what I am supposed to believe. However in my view it is not science but its corruption. Some people have been frightened out of their lives over this New Age religion and all its bullying and scare stories, and I simply do not go along with it. I could write in depth about why I don't buy it, but that would be both boring and considered by many to be heresy. So far I have read nothing that is new to me and which I have not already thought through and still find the more hysterical the supporters of this whole issue become the less credible it appears to me.

 

[user 43495]

For some reason, this chart comes to mind
View attachment 56097

It's not a dribble - as I said above, 40GW of offshore wind is planned by 2030. It's not the only thing we need, but that is a significant chunk of capacity. We need all the forms of generation that we can get, as long as they are sustainable (ie there's provision for the waste) and are affordable - Hinkley Point will cost more than double the price of wind or solar, and they're complaining that's not enough. If you want expensive electricity, go nuclear.



Currently China has about 300GW each of solar, wind and hydro, she's going hard on renewables and has committed to peaking emissions by 2030 and carbon neutral by 2060. Not perfect, but still more than some Western countries have committed to.



Again your confidence exceeds your knowledge. Right now offshore wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity generation. Typical lifespan is 25 years, not much different to most other forms of power plant - and it's relatively easy to reuse the foundations which are a big chunk of the upfront cost. Yes all economic activity involves mining and transportation - same with oil. There's plenty of oil - but not much cheap oil left, the only major reserves are things like the Venezuelan tars and Canadian oilsands which are expensive and very environmentally damaging to extract.

As for alfajerry's article - the guy is vastly overstating the energy required, as he's basing it on the (inefficient) use of energy of burning fossil fuels. See my calculation above based on current electric technology which comes out at 10.3GW continuous for the car fleet rather than his 33GW. Yes it's a challenge, but it's not as bad as he makes out, and he doesn't state where the energy would come from if we kept with fossil fuels.

How strange then that bills keep rising, and dramatically too. Thank you for taking the time to give your evaluation of both my knowledge and 'confidence'. It is however irrelevant.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Congratulations to The Magistrate 64 posts in 5 days, i thought i was the Snugs biggest contributor

 

[user 43495]

I do agree that we should do more with nuclear.

People think it’s dangerous, but per TWh there’s 0.07 deaths attributable to production and pollution, which is comparable to wind (0.04) and solar (0.02), and castle less than coal (24.6) and gas (2.6). That includes Chernobyl and Fukushima.

It also produces a similar level of overall pollution to wind and solar, and a tenth of even hydro power.

Unfortunately disasters like Chernobyl are hard to ignore. Whereas we seem to routinely ignore coal mining disasters that kill dozens or hundreds at a time every couple of years (Mining accident - Wikipedia), coal mine fires (Coal-seam fire - Wikipedia) and many other disasters from fossil fuels.

Chernobyl was nowhere near the disaster painted by those who seem to get so spooked out over the mention of nuclear. Everything we do obtains a degree of risk. We either want the energy we need at a price which doesn't plunge millions into a eat or heat situation (to do so no matter how recklessly is wicked) or we are content to freeze in winter while the cost of the so-called 'free energy' rises and rises. By all means move to alternative sources of energy BUT they really must be practical, in the quantity we need (that's for industry as well as domestic users) and at an affordable price. At the moment the push to sources which depend on our unpredictable weather is not going too well. It will upset the greenies I know, but we need to mine our coal, exploit our oil and gas reserves as a stop-gap to keep people warm until the technology sorts the alternatives out properly. At the moment the rug has been pulled from under out feet. That is my main objection quite apart from the so-called 'catastrophic' manmade climate change issue which, I find ridiculous. However it does show the power of indoctrination reinforced with threats of damnation if one dares not believe. It reminds me more of a religion than anything at all scientific.

 

[user 43495]

Congratulations to The Magistrate 64 posts in 5 days, i thought i was the Snugs biggest contributor

That's because I always "drink judiciously".

 

[user 43495]

Guess the bottom line is we are heavily over populated - Cannot expect Bo Jo to lead from the front though when he has knocked out six.
Energy is one problem, getting enough food in the future is potentially another.

Hope you did not take offence at my last little quip Magistrate certainly none intended. - I still have not come to terms with the BiL future acquisition. I rather suspect that he perceives it will save him money long term, and he fancies the ridiculous acceleration the thing can achieve.

I am no woke snowflake. Far too old for all that. I grew up at a time of free speech and tolerance of different views. How strange it is then when nowadays diversity is the thing, except, of course, diversity of opinion.

 

[Class68driver]

Magistrate wrote "

expand...

Chernobyl was nowhere near the disaster painted by those who seem to get so spooked out over the mention of nuclear."

I think you need to do some research on the devastating effects that disaster had back then and what is still going on today.

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/environmental-studies/chernobyl-long-term-effects.php
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster
Many horrific things happened to people and over the following years these have continued. I'm not sure how to react to someone saying the worst nuclear disaster the world has seen was nowhere near as bad as people say. Very strange thing to post mate.

 

[trummy]

Found this- I find it hard to disagree with its content.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

Electricity is still far cheaper than petrol - as I keep mentioning,

Is this only the case because of the huge tax and other duty on petrol in the Uk. I’d like to see a real comparison.

 

[TonyT]

I am no woke snowflake. Far too old for all that. I grew up at a time of free speech and tolerance of different views. How strange it is then when nowadays diversity is the thing, except, of course, diversity of opinion.

Oh you poor victim! I don’t know how old you are, but I think that free speech and diversity of opinion are are tolerated far more now than they were when I was younger, I’m 67. But if you are going to espouse views that are at odds with the majority then you have to expect a certain degree of conflict. It certainly appears that the majority of your posts on this subject are heavily laden with rhetoric and cynicism but little of substance. In your own words you won’t attempt to explain your views because people would find it ‘boring’.

 

[johncrobinson]

I think that is the case Benfleet.

Thats why they go around with detectors checking fuel tanks to make sure no-one is using the "cheap" stuff

Same with "buckshee" tobacco they raid shops and tell the people its bad to smoke this type of tobacco.
As if "UK duty paid" did no harm.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Is this only the case because of the huge tax and other duty on petrol in the Uk. I’d like to see a real comparison.

Well, petrol duty ain't going away, and they've made it clear that they want electricity to be the least-taxed form of energy as it's currently the most renewable (they're going to move the current ~10% charge on electricity that's subsidising renewables, so any replacement for fuel duty will be based on road-charging which both petrol and electrics will pay. So any "real" comparison is going to include petrol duty.

There's not much difference in a pure £/energy comparison, but the petrol car comes out worse per mile because it uses that energy about half as efficiently.

Thats why they go around with detectors checking fuel tanks to make sure no-one is using the "cheap" stuff

That's not because of the comparison with electric, that's just simply targetting tax evasion because petrol/diesel is heavily taxed. And as I say, that tax ain't going away.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Found this- I find it hard to disagree with its content.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772

They are saying use heat pumps when as has been said in the other thread they don't work -

https://www.thehomebrewforum.co.uk/threads/heat-pump-grants-worth-£5-000.96502/post-1083625
What can individuals do?
Major changes need to come from governments and businesses, but scientists say some small changes in our lives can limit our impact on the climate:

• Take fewer flights
• Live car-free or use an electric car
• Buy energy efficient products, such as washing machines, when they need replacing
• Switch from a gas heating system to an electric heat pump
• Insulate your home.

 

[starseeker]

It seems to me that one of the easiest things they could of done ,would of been to make all new houses built,have solar panels and a battery storage pack and have electric heating .
But all i can think is the energy producers don't want that and tell the government ,that without everybody buying their energy, they will not be able to invest in renewables etc ?

 

[Leon103]

It seems to me that one of the easiest things they could of done ,would of been to make all new houses built,have solar panels and a battery storage pack and have electric heating .
But all i can think is the energy producers don't want that and tell the government ,that without everybody buying their energy, they will not be able to invest in renewables etc ?

Aren't most houses now required to have solar, water collection etc

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Aren't most houses now required to have solar, water collection etc

From 2021 all new homes will be expected to achieve a 31% reduction in carbon emissions.
Today, when building a new home, it is required that you include energy saving measures and offsets such as cheap new build solar panels.
These include solar panels or solar thermal systems.
Solar panels do not need to detract from the attractiveness of your new build.
Properties can be designed and built to incorporate the technology more ergonomically, so they do not look too unsightly.

https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.u...-for-new-builds-cheap-new-build-solar-panels/

 

[Leon103]

From 2021 all new homes will be expected to achieve a 31% reduction in carbon emissions.
Today, when building a new home, it is required that you include energy saving measures and offsets such as cheap new build solar panels.
These include solar panels or solar thermal systems.
Solar panels do not need to detract from the attractiveness of your new build.
Properties can be designed and built to incorporate the technology more ergonomically, so they do not look too unsightly.

https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.u...-for-new-builds-cheap-new-build-solar-panels/

Not many new houses get build around my way and certainly no big developers, but from what I have seen the new solar designs look really good and fit into the roof.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

It seems to me that one of the easiest things they could of done ,would of been to make all new houses built,have solar panels and a battery storage pack and have electric heating .
But all i can think is the energy producers don't want that and tell the government ,that without everybody buying their energy, they will not be able to invest in renewables etc ?

There's no conspiracy theory. There's just not enough new houses to make a difference - there's around 250k newbuilds per year, which works out as 1% of the 25 million houses in the UK.

The Future Homes Standard announced in 2019 plans to cut emissions by 75% compared to the 2014 standard by eg banning gas boilers in newbuilds by 2025 and effectively insisting on something close to PassivHaus as a minimum standard for insulation. The 31% reduction mentioned above is a stepping stone to FHS and won't come in until next June and comes from higher standards for heat loss through windows, better boiler efficiency etc. It also specifies that radiators should be sized to cope with lower temperature water to allow fitting heat pumps in future.

That's for England - Wales has slightly different rules and timings.

It's easier to do things with new houses - which is why eg the subsidies for solar on new houses have always been far less than for retrofits - but you can't achieve the objectives just by fiddling around with the 1%. You need policies that work for the other 25 million houses. Better insulation and airtightness are the easy wins but the record on that over recent years has not been great.

 

[dad_of_jon]

. You need policies that work for the other 25 million houses. Better insulation and airtightness are the easy wins but the record on that over recent years has not been great.

Agreed. Given that there is a finite pot of Grant money available it should be targeted at the most inefficient houses first. With the typical movement in the housing market since the introduction of EPC certs being required to sell it shouldn't be too difficult to do. There will be houses of a certain rating that have already been sold with an EPC so that would save on surveys calculations. The rating depends on the aspect of the property, its altitude and your latitude as well as of course its construction. Plus this means a natural bias all other things being equal to more northerly properties, which should help 'level up' North V South which the government has indicated is one of their aims.