The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

That points to cameras everywhere then, we already have average speed cameras.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

That points to cameras everywhere then, we already have average speed cameras.

Yeah, but we already know that is part of the war on motorists and that they are using motorists as cash cows as obviously driving within the speed limit isn't an option.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

That points to cameras everywhere then, we already have average speed cameras.

There are a LOT of places in the UK without them.

I'm not opposed, necessarily, just saying there will be outcry.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

That points to cameras everywhere then, we already have average speed cameras.

There are a LOT of places in the UK without them.

I'm not opposed, necessarily, just saying there will be outcry.

Mandatory black boxes seems the easiest method. Especially as the tech already exists and is being used by some. I'm sure I predicted this years ago.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

That points to cameras everywhere then, we already have average speed cameras.

There are a LOT of places in the UK without them.

I'm not opposed, necessarily, just saying there will be outcry.

Mandatory black boxes seems the easiest method. Especially as the tech already exists and is being used by some. I'm sure I predicted this years ago.

I suspect that for a long time there will be work arounds for the speed limiting part of it, for those who would accept the insurance liability. But yes, I don't see any other option. In a few decades it will be laughable that defending the right to excess speed that kills and injure thousands a year were so vigorously defended.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Electric vehicles work well with renewable energy as they can be charged when there is a lot surplus power and prices are cheap. Right now, many will be charged with power made from carbon, but that is going to rapidly change over the next decade, so I don't think this is a fair point.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?

Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.

skyblueamateur

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Electric vehicles work well with renewable energy as they can be charged when there is a lot surplus power and prices are cheap. Right now, many will be charged with power made from carbon, but that is going to rapidly change over the next decade, so I don't think this is a fair point.

Yep. Why there isn’t more incentives for solar panels is beyond me. We got panels installed at work using an EU scheme which provided us with 40% funding.

With the current price of electricity we will have them paid back within 2.5 years. It’s a no brainer.

I’m now looking at investing in an EV which I will charge from the solar panels.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Electric vehicles work well with renewable energy as they can be charged when there is a lot surplus power and prices are cheap. Right now, many will be charged with power made from carbon, but that is going to rapidly change over the next decade, so I don't think this is a fair point.

I think you are more hopeful than I am. I don't really believe the current government are interested in growing renewable generation and the planning system, which everything has to squeeze through, is utterly broken. If stuff is not already at the planning stage it's not happening this decade

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?

Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.

There is a massive pipeline to be deployed. The target of 50GW of offshore wind by 2030 probably won't happen, but 30GW probably will and perhaps more.

Note that the government is arguing over the merits of onshore wind farms in England. I doubt anyone will build one of those anyway as they can't compete with onshore in Scotland or offshore.

The tax is obviously foolish. Particularly when it applies to new builds, but vast amounts of renewable energy is coming despite the current government's efforts.

Some credit is due to Johnson for restarting the CFD auctions.

rjsterry

Hope you are right. Certainly ironic that the one thing Johnson was right about seems to be the thing his successors are keenest to ditch.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?

Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.

That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.

Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):



So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.

Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Electric vehicles work well with renewable energy as they can be charged when there is a lot surplus power and prices are cheap. Right now, many will be charged with power made from carbon, but that is going to rapidly change over the next decade, so I don't think this is a fair point.

Is there likely to be a lot of competition for the raw materials needed in car batteries and those needed to store renewable energy?

First.Aspect

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Electric vehicles work well with renewable energy as they can be charged when there is a lot surplus power and prices are cheap. Right now, many will be charged with power made from carbon, but that is going to rapidly change over the next decade, so I don't think this is a fair point.

Is there likely to be a lot of competition for the raw materials needed in car batteries and those needed to store renewable energy?

No.

Transportation needs fast, light, high density. That's expensive.

Other energy storage doesn't. If you needed batteries, you could use lead-acid. Alternatively, as I've said repeatedly, we are surrounded by water, from which hydrogen can be generated and from that, electricity. A combination of renewables sources, wind, solar, tidal plus a combination of storage sources, should in principle be capable of smoothing out power requirements. At least if there is a guaranteed "tap" to turn on in the form of nuclear.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

I drive but only when necessary. I would like to make the switch to an EV but obviously that is prohibitively expensive. My (very) rudimentary understanding is the the higher prices are largely determined by production costs of batteries.

I have read various pieces claiming that by the time the sales of new petrol/diesel cars is banned, EV prices will have reduced dramatically and be in line with petrol car prices. For those who have more knowledge of the tech and the reality of production, is this actually likely to happen, or is it people largely assuming that it must happen in order to encourage people to buy an EV by the time of the ban in 2030?

Pross

It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".

pblakeney

Pross said:

It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".

Too early in development and lacking efficiency.
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Sorry, I meant how is it different from seatbelts, crash helmets and smoking in public places? Obviously there are differences in the details but they are all at their root, situations where the balance between personal liberty and public benefit was reset in the face of initial resistance and long periods of campaigning.

There are big differences between the seatbelts / crash helmets / smoking points and stopping people using their own private means of transport. I could see a clear benefit to those:
- Seatbelts - saves lives and is no big imposition.
- Crash helmets - saved my bonce while MTB'ing more than once.
- Smoking indoors - prevented making my stuff stink/saved me taking my stuff to the dry cleaners/avoiding passive smoking.
I don't recall many people objecting that hard to those (although can't remember the seatbelts episode, maybe too young?).

However, stop people using cars - no obvious upside for most people but significant inconvenience/extra time to do stuff etc for many. Try imposing that on the public.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Sorry, I meant how is it different from seatbelts, crash helmets and smoking in public places? Obviously there are differences in the details but they are all at their root, situations where the balance between personal liberty and public benefit was reset in the face of initial resistance and long periods of campaigning.

There are big differences between the seatbelts / crash helmets / smoking points and stopping people using their own private means of transport. I could see a clear benefit to those:
- Seatbelts - saves lives and is no big imposition.
- Crash helmets - saved my bonce while MTB'ing more than once.
- Smoking indoors - prevented making my stuff stink/saved me taking my stuff to the dry cleaners/avoiding passive smoking.
I don't recall many people objecting that hard to those (although can't remember the seatbelts episode, maybe too young?).

However, stop people using cars - no obvious upside for most people but significant inconvenience/extra time to do stuff etc for many. Try imposing that on the public.

You mean apart from cleaner air, reduction in CO2 emissions, reduction in road casualties etc.

All of the other things you list also had a lot of people who enjoyed doing them arguing that it was bad. Your post only highlights the benefits you can see to yourself, people need to look beyond what is good for them at what is good / necessary for the majority. I enjoy the convenience of using my car as much as anyone and quite enjoy driving on journeys through country A or B roads but ultimately know that it is becoming increasingly important to reduce that behaviour as much as possible.

Dorset_Boy

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?

Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.

That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.

Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):



So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.

Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.

Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.

kingstongraham

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?

Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.

That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.

Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):



So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.

Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.

Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.

https://grid.iamkate.com/

23.5%

Dorset_Boy

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?

Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.

That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.

Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):



So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.

Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.

Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.

https://grid.iamkate.com/

23.5%

Not sure where the wind is blowing!
Last january was similar, with no wind.

rick_chasey

The Economist did a piece on offshore wind in the North sea and it sounds like a real game changer.

It's also a big opportunity for the UK - I think they're doing a lot but they can grasp more.

Sounds like some of the planned farms will generate so much energy they need to work out what to do with it all as the infrastructure wouldn't be able to handle it. Options include sharing it out between nations so it has a much bigger base to send it to or even building islands to use the electricity to convert it into different types of energy e.g. hyrdogen etc.

The north sea is relatively shallow and pretty windy. It's the perfect storm

First.Aspect

Pross said:

It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".

Pross said:

It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".

Too expensive. There are projections from renewables UK (I think) at what total total capacity might be, and its something like 15% of UK generation. That's probably an upper estimate of what is practically possible, rather than some hypothetical situation with turbines and barrages everywhere.

The sea is nasty, and tides are violent. So inherently turbines need to survive about the worst environment, which increases build and maintenance costs.

First.Aspect

But not too expensive as such, just more expensive than wind. Probably always will be, but it is completely reliable, so can be a very valuable part of the mix.

pblakeney

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".

Too early in development and lacking efficiency.
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."

My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".

Too early in development and lacking efficiency.
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."

My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.

Not sure I agree that it is too early in development.

https://orbitalmarine.com/

kingstongraham

Dorset_Boy said:

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.

Not if the grid is decarbonised. At that stage is becomes more of a purely economic policy doesn't it?

Key word there. We can barely bring ourselves to allow wind farms and the government was actively campaigning against solar farms.

That is because it is sunnier in the south, where their votes come from. They are self-serving short termist clowns, but won't be in power for long.

Current UK energy mix (and I've seen other graphs that suggest wind is higher, nuclear is lower, but mostly they suggest gas/coal at the level shown here):



So 40% still to go. Offshore wind is going to increase massively in the next decade - the SNP has just sold off leases on the cheap, the Crown Estate has just sold them at a more sensible level, and we know there are a couple of new huge nuclear plants under construction. Solar is not going to be a big UK contributor ever, I wouldn't have thought, but even so it will also increase.

Complete decarbonisation, not sure. But I am going to say gas will be less than 20% sooner than you think.

Well wind won't be producing anything today - winter high pressure = cold weather & no wind.

https://grid.iamkate.com/

23.5%

Not sure where the wind is blowing!
Last january was similar, with no wind.

Offshore most likely.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

It feels like tidal seems to still be getting overlooked as "too difficult".

Too early in development and lacking efficiency.
Should be a no-brainer if it can be fully developed. Just needs long term investment. "Just."

My apologies. I was thinking about wave power rather than tidal.

Wave power is a non starter, honestly. I've just seen yet another reincarnation of the floating sausage that has already failed once. Suffers from the same issues as tidal stream generation, but without the magnitude of power or the reliability.

The vision is large surface area coverage of course, because there's a lot of ocean, but the unit costs per W are miles away as far as I am aware.

Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.