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

Dorset_Boy

Not sure the Aussies are in any position to lecture the rest of the world on emissions!!

Maybe when they have millions on acres of solar farms on their useless (from an agriculture perspective) interior.

kingstongraham

Private Eye 6 years ago:

https://twitter.com/biofuelwatch/status/826397577381822464

(and regularly ever since)

First.Aspect

That's explaining the basic problem with biomass and wood pellets. Another unscaleable energy source. The most depressing thing is the government policy support for it.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

Not to mention that burning wood releases carbon absorbed within the last couple of centuries at most, whereas burning coal releases carbon that has been removed from the cycle for hundreds of millions of years.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

Not to mention that burning wood releases carbon absorbed within the last couple of centuries at most, whereas burning coal releases carbon that has been removed from the cycle for hundreds of millions of years.

Old growth forest has far more biodiversity value than can be replaced in 100 years. And Logging old growth is one of Canadas dirty secrets, but it's not ALL coming from old growth.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

Doesn't really solve the emissions problem, no?

It can do if the electric to create it is renewable. That's why it's located where it is I believe - lots of cheap renewable.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

All so the ICE nostalgia club can have a car that goes brrrm.

There are better ways to think of it than that.

Its a worthy cause for many Hydrogen ICE will also cut those more discerning folks for whom cars are more than just a means of getting from a to b.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

All so the ICE nostalgia club can have a car that goes brrrm.

There are better ways to think of it than that.

Its a worthy cause for many Hydrogen ICE will also cut those more discerning folks for whom cars are more than just a means of getting from a to b.

Set up theme parks for them.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

Not to mention that burning wood releases carbon absorbed within the last couple of centuries at most, whereas burning coal releases carbon that has been removed from the cycle for hundreds of millions of years.

Old growth forest has far more biodiversity value than can be replaced in 100 years. And Logging old growth is one of Canadas dirty secrets, but it's not ALL coming from old growth.

Wasn't suggesting it was a good thing, just that from an emissions point of view, coal is *much* worse.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

All so the ICE nostalgia club can have a car that goes brrrm.

There are better ways to think of it than that.

Its a worthy cause for many Hydrogen ICE will also cut those more discerning folks for whom cars are more than just a means of getting from a to b.

Quite agree 😀

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

This is all starting to sound like the Rev. W. Awdry grumbling about new-fangled electric locomotives.

Yup. There will always be *something" to burn in heritage combustion engines. But if they get weight of electric cars down from 2000+ kg to 1600-1700 kg again and give a 400 mile range, why would anyone bother with an internal combustion engine? It's going to be seen like a thatched roof or a wax recording.

focuszing723

https://twitter.com/Tesla/status/1624439953223520257?cxt=HHwWgsC4rfzhlYstAAAA

Wheelspinner

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

Not to mention that burning wood releases carbon absorbed within the last couple of centuries at most, whereas burning coal releases carbon that has been removed from the cycle for hundreds of millions of years.

Old growth forest has far more biodiversity value than can be replaced in 100 years. And Logging old growth is one of Canadas dirty secrets, but it's not ALL coming from old growth.

Wasn't suggesting it was a good thing, just that from an emissions point of view, coal is *much* worse.

Sorry? You’re the one complaining upthread about particulates pollution specifically, making air quality worse. Notwithstanding the furphy about whether coal is a million years old versus a few hundred years for trees, the burning of wood pellets *right now* is considerably worse than coal for pollution in both particulate matter and CO2 emissions in your back yard.

So how is the actual combustion process of coal “much worse”?

Wheelspinner

Dorset_Boy said:

Not sure the Aussies are in any position to lecture the rest of the world on emissions!!

Maybe when they have millions on acres of solar farms on their useless (from an agriculture perspective) interior.

Perhaps we aren’t. But when the statistics for emissions for UK and EU specifically *exclude* any data for emissions generated by “renewables” you have to wonder just how honest they’re being.

Hint: the answer is “not very”.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

All so the ICE nostalgia club can have a car that goes brrrm.

There are better ways to think of it than that.

Its a worthy cause for many Hydrogen ICE will also cut those more discerning folks for whom cars are more than just a means of getting from a to b.

Quite agree 😀

There's no point trying to explain to someone who doesn't even drive

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

All so the ICE nostalgia club can have a car that goes brrrm.

There are better ways to think of it than that.

Its a worthy cause for many Hydrogen ICE will also cut those more discerning folks for whom cars are more than just a means of getting from a to b.

Set up theme parks for them.

Already got them, they're called roads

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

All so the ICE nostalgia club can have a car that goes brrrm.

There are better ways to think of it than that.

Its a worthy cause for many Hydrogen ICE will also cut those more discerning folks for whom cars are more than just a means of getting from a to b.

Set up theme parks for them.

Already got them, they're called roads

Just imagine them car-free, and mainly used by bikes! How much fun that would be!!

Hmm, I wonder which ones currently effectively (or actually) out-of-bounds I'd want to ride on... I think I'd quite like to come down Telegraph Hill towards Kenton for starters (having missed my chance in lockdown)...

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

Not to mention that burning wood releases carbon absorbed within the last couple of centuries at most, whereas burning coal releases carbon that has been removed from the cycle for hundreds of millions of years.

Old growth forest has far more biodiversity value than can be replaced in 100 years. And Logging old growth is one of Canadas dirty secrets, but it's not ALL coming from old growth.

Wasn't suggesting it was a good thing, just that from an emissions point of view, coal is *much* worse.

Sorry? You’re the one complaining upthread about particulates pollution specifically, making air quality worse. Notwithstanding the furphy about whether coal is a million years old versus a few hundred years for trees, the burning of wood pellets *right now* is considerably worse than coal for pollution in both particulate matter and CO2 emissions in your back yard.

So how is the actual combustion process of coal “much worse”?

You are correct that wood burning - particularly domestic wood burning stoves - is a major source particulate pollution in London (and presumably other cities). Proximity makes a big difference, especially larger PM 10.

That's different from CO2 emissions and overall carbon contribution. The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere in a completely different climate: atmospheric CO2 during the Carboniferous Period was roughly 4 times what it is now. Releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere is more of a problem than releasing carbon that has (in geological terms) only just been absorbed.

There are better and worse ways to turn trees into fuel and some are particularly bad in terms of overall CO2 emissions but I don't think it is correct to state that all wood burnt for generation is in the latter category.

Burning wood for electricity or for heating in suburban and urban areas is probably a bad idea, but still on balance less bad than burning coal.

Wheelspinner

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

Not to mention that burning wood releases carbon absorbed within the last couple of centuries at most, whereas burning coal releases carbon that has been removed from the cycle for hundreds of millions of years.

Old growth forest has far more biodiversity value than can be replaced in 100 years. And Logging old growth is one of Canadas dirty secrets, but it's not ALL coming from old growth.

Wasn't suggesting it was a good thing, just that from an emissions point of view, coal is *much* worse.

Sorry? You’re the one complaining upthread about particulates pollution specifically, making air quality worse. Notwithstanding the furphy about whether coal is a million years old versus a few hundred years for trees, the burning of wood pellets *right now* is considerably worse than coal for pollution in both particulate matter and CO2 emissions in your back yard.

So how is the actual combustion process of coal “much worse”?

You are correct that wood burning - particularly domestic wood burning stoves - is a major source particulate pollution in London (and presumably other cities). Proximity makes a big difference, especially larger PM 10.

That's different from CO2 emissions and overall carbon contribution. The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere in a completely different climate: atmospheric CO2 during the Carboniferous Period was roughly 4 times what it is now. Releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere is more of a problem than releasing carbon that has (in geological terms) only just been absorbed.

There are better and worse ways to turn trees into fuel and some are particularly bad in terms of overall CO2 emissions but I don't think it is correct to state that all wood burnt for generation is in the latter category.

Burning wood for electricity or for heating in suburban and urban areas is probably a bad idea, but still on balance less bad than burning coal.

We’ll agree to disagree. The bit I’ve highlighted in bold is just bullsh1t peddled by the “experts” to justify their choice to burn other stuff and get paid to do it.

Carbon released is carbon released. Power generation is a fairly simple formula: burn something to generate a required amount of heat to drive your generation process. The amount of heat required is the same whether you burn million year old coal or hundred year old wood. You burn whatever you need to get that number.

The emissions created *now* in those 2 processes are directly comparable.

Coal is essentially useless to humanity other than fuel and steel-making. It’s just old landfill. Sheesh, it actually comes from trees doing their thing, capturing carbon, and eventually decaying into dirt -> dust -> coal. Trees on the other hand have a very real function in the biosphere right now, every day, anywhere they exist. Food, shelter, air filtration etc etc, and then when it eventually dies it decays into something that’s still

So remind me, why is killing the tree and burning it before it gets a chance to do short and long term good a better option than burning a lump of (very old) landfill with no other real use?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think burning coal is a good thing either, but anybody who pretends that cutting down forests and burning that instead is “better”, in a process that demonstrably is worse environmentally, is just hypocritically lying through their teeth. Presumably because they are getting paid loads of money to do so.

Until “humanity” collectively gets the message that it’s not about how the power is generated, but what you waste it on doing that is the actual problem it will get nowhere.

So much of what we “do” is intrinsically pointless, wasteful, and trivial. In all honesty, humanity in its current form doesn’t deserve to survive.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

This is all starting to sound like the Rev. W. Awdry grumbling about new-fangled electric locomotives.

Yup. There will always be *something" to burn in heritage combustion engines. But if they get weight of electric cars down from 2000+ kg to 1600-1700 kg again and give a 400 mile range, why would anyone bother with an internal combustion engine? It's going to be seen like a thatched roof or a wax recording.

Net zero needs multiple technologies, because electric cars are not currently as you describe, and there is no point backing a single option in the hope it comes good.

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

Not to mention that burning wood releases carbon absorbed within the last couple of centuries at most, whereas burning coal releases carbon that has been removed from the cycle for hundreds of millions of years.

Old growth forest has far more biodiversity value than can be replaced in 100 years. And Logging old growth is one of Canadas dirty secrets, but it's not ALL coming from old growth.

Wasn't suggesting it was a good thing, just that from an emissions point of view, coal is *much* worse.

Sorry? You’re the one complaining upthread about particulates pollution specifically, making air quality worse. Notwithstanding the furphy about whether coal is a million years old versus a few hundred years for trees, the burning of wood pellets *right now* is considerably worse than coal for pollution in both particulate matter and CO2 emissions in your back yard.

So how is the actual combustion process of coal “much worse”?

You are correct that wood burning - particularly domestic wood burning stoves - is a major source particulate pollution in London (and presumably other cities). Proximity makes a big difference, especially larger PM 10.

That's different from CO2 emissions and overall carbon contribution. The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere in a completely different climate: atmospheric CO2 during the Carboniferous Period was roughly 4 times what it is now. Releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere is more of a problem than releasing carbon that has (in geological terms) only just been absorbed.

There are better and worse ways to turn trees into fuel and some are particularly bad in terms of overall CO2 emissions but I don't think it is correct to state that all wood burnt for generation is in the latter category.

Burning wood for electricity or for heating in suburban and urban areas is probably a bad idea, but still on balance less bad than burning coal.

We’ll agree to disagree. The bit I’ve highlighted in bold is just bullsh1t peddled by the “experts” to justify their choice to burn other stuff and get paid to do it.

Carbon released is carbon released. Power generation is a fairly simple formula: burn something to generate a required amount of heat to drive your generation process. The amount of heat required is the same whether you burn million year old coal or hundred year old wood. You burn whatever you need to get that number.

The emissions created *now* in those 2 processes are directly comparable.

Coal is essentially useless to humanity other than fuel and steel-making. It’s just old landfill. Sheesh, it actually comes from trees doing their thing, capturing carbon, and eventually decaying into dirt -> dust -> coal. Trees on the other hand have a very real function in the biosphere right now, every day, anywhere they exist. Food, shelter, air filtration etc etc, and then when it eventually dies it decays into something that’s still

So remind me, why is killing the tree and burning it before it gets a chance to do short and long term good a better option than burning a lump of (very old) landfill with no other real use?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think burning coal is a good thing either, but anybody who pretends that cutting down forests and burning that instead is “better”, in a process that demonstrably is worse environmentally, is just hypocritically lying through their teeth. Presumably because they are getting paid loads of money to do so.

Until “humanity” collectively gets the message that it’s not about how the power is generated, but what you waste it on doing that is the actual problem it will get nowhere.

So much of what we “do” is intrinsically pointless, wasteful, and trivial. In all honesty, humanity in its current form doesn’t deserve to survive.

I'm not sure we do disagree that much. I've agreed that burning wood for power generation is a bad idea. The BedZed development is just around the corner from me and while that started off with a wood pellet fired district heating system it's since been replaced and there's no way you would install a similar system now.

I also agree that trying to find alternative ways to carry on doing the same thing rather than actually changing what we do - developing replacement fuels for ICE vehicles for example - is completely missing the point.

I don't really agree with the last paragraph. As far as we can tell we are the only animal that gives any thought at all to their impact on the environment. I don't think dividing the world into deserving and undeserving species is helpful and I don't think we need any more reasons to give up trying to do better.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

Not to mention that burning wood releases carbon absorbed within the last couple of centuries at most, whereas burning coal releases carbon that has been removed from the cycle for hundreds of millions of years.

Old growth forest has far more biodiversity value than can be replaced in 100 years. And Logging old growth is one of Canadas dirty secrets, but it's not ALL coming from old growth.

Wasn't suggesting it was a good thing, just that from an emissions point of view, coal is *much* worse.

Sorry? You’re the one complaining upthread about particulates pollution specifically, making air quality worse. Notwithstanding the furphy about whether coal is a million years old versus a few hundred years for trees, the burning of wood pellets *right now* is considerably worse than coal for pollution in both particulate matter and CO2 emissions in your back yard.

So how is the actual combustion process of coal “much worse”?

You are correct that wood burning - particularly domestic wood burning stoves - is a major source particulate pollution in London (and presumably other cities). Proximity makes a big difference, especially larger PM 10.

That's different from CO2 emissions and overall carbon contribution. The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere in a completely different climate: atmospheric CO2 during the Carboniferous Period was roughly 4 times what it is now. Releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere is more of a problem than releasing carbon that has (in geological terms) only just been absorbed.

There are better and worse ways to turn trees into fuel and some are particularly bad in terms of overall CO2 emissions but I don't think it is correct to state that all wood burnt for generation is in the latter category.

Burning wood for electricity or for heating in suburban and urban areas is probably a bad idea, but still on balance less bad than burning coal.

We’ll agree to disagree. The bit I’ve highlighted in bold is just bullsh1t peddled by the “experts” to justify their choice to burn other stuff and get paid to do it.

Carbon released is carbon released. Power generation is a fairly simple formula: burn something to generate a required amount of heat to drive your generation process. The amount of heat required is the same whether you burn million year old coal or hundred year old wood. You burn whatever you need to get that number.

The emissions created *now* in those 2 processes are directly comparable.

Coal is essentially useless to humanity other than fuel and steel-making. It’s just old landfill. Sheesh, it actually comes from trees doing their thing, capturing carbon, and eventually decaying into dirt -> dust -> coal. Trees on the other hand have a very real function in the biosphere right now, every day, anywhere they exist. Food, shelter, air filtration etc etc, and then when it eventually dies it decays into something that’s still

So remind me, why is killing the tree and burning it before it gets a chance to do short and long term good a better option than burning a lump of (very old) landfill with no other real use?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think burning coal is a good thing either, but anybody who pretends that cutting down forests and burning that instead is “better”, in a process that demonstrably is worse environmentally, is just hypocritically lying through their teeth. Presumably because they are getting paid loads of money to do so.

Until “humanity” collectively gets the message that it’s not about how the power is generated, but what you waste it on doing that is the actual problem it will get nowhere.

So much of what we “do” is intrinsically pointless, wasteful, and trivial. In all honesty, humanity in its current form doesn’t deserve to survive.

I'm not sure we do disagree that much. I've agreed that burning wood for power generation is a bad idea. The BedZed development is just around the corner from me and while that started off with a wood pellet fired district heating system it's since been replaced and there's no way you would install a similar system now.

I also agree that trying to find alternative ways to carry on doing the same thing rather than actually changing what we do - developing replacement fuels for ICE vehicles for example - is completely missing the point.

I don't really agree with the last paragraph. As far as we can tell we are the only animal that gives any thought at all to their impact on the environment. I don't think dividing the world into deserving and undeserving species is helpful and I don't think we need any more reasons to give up trying to do better.

We are the only species that does things 'for the sake of it' 'because we can' or for entertainment though. Much of that is causing a negative impact on the planet e.g. being determined to keep driving ICE vehicles because it's fun and they make a pleasing noise or jumping on a plane several times a year to spend two weeks lying in the sun. Whilst I don't think we should stop doing these things completely as life has to be worth living (and we need to keep the economic system we have in place growing) we do all need to think hard about how we can reduce our personal impact on the planet. My main issue with Rick's vision that led to this thread was that it didn't focus enough on changing things to minimise the amount of travel that is needed and instead aimed at changing the way people do that travelling.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

This is all starting to sound like the Rev. W. Awdry grumbling about new-fangled electric locomotives.

Yup. There will always be *something" to burn in heritage combustion engines. But if they get weight of electric cars down from 2000+ kg to 1600-1700 kg again and give a 400 mile range, why would anyone bother with an internal combustion engine? It's going to be seen like a thatched roof or a wax recording.

Net zero needs multiple technologies, because electric cars are not currently as you describe, and there is no point backing a single option in the hope it comes good.

Yes, that is why they are backing it. There are also investments in hydrogen combustion for aircraft, as well as electric aircraft and sustainable aviation fuel. And all of the above for road transport as well most likely. I bet if you looked around Porsche have backed several horses. Some will end up being viable, some won't.

My gut feeling is that this Porsche technology not one that coupd provide a significant contribution. I would love to be wrong.

Jezyboy

Presumably the owners of the coal power stations in Aus are planting trees in the same was as drax.

Wheelspinner

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

I'm not sure we do disagree that much. I've agreed that burning wood for power generation is a bad idea. The BedZed development is just around the corner from me and while that started off with a wood pellet fired district heating system it's since been replaced and there's no way you would install a similar system now.

I also agree that trying to find alternative ways to carry on doing the same thing rather than actually changing what we do - developing replacement fuels for ICE vehicles for example - is completely missing the point.

I don't really agree with the last paragraph. As far as we can tell we are the only animal that gives any thought at all to their impact on the environment. I don't think dividing the world into deserving and undeserving species is helpful and I don't think we need any more reasons to give up trying to do better.

We are the only species that does things 'for the sake of it' 'because we can' or for entertainment though. Much of that is causing a negative impact on the planet e.g. being determined to keep driving ICE vehicles because it's fun and they make a pleasing noise or jumping on a plane several times a year to spend two weeks lying in the sun. Whilst I don't think we should stop doing these things completely as life has to be worth living (and we need to keep the economic system we have in place growing) we do all need to think hard about how we can reduce our personal impact on the planet. My main issue with Rick's vision that led to this thread was that it didn't focus enough on changing things to minimise the amount of travel that is needed and instead aimed at changing the way people do that travelling.

^ Correct, mostly :-)

Rick loves to troll these kind of threads, just for the fun of it I think. He may well think that cars are bad and people should stop using them so much, but who cares? On other threads, he's happy to tell you how good he is at computer gaming.

That's almost but not quite as bad as Bitcoin mining when it comes to power wastage. Probably worse when you consider the output of all that burnt energy.

I'm not going to take seriously anyone who claims "green" interests at heart when they clearly aren't remotely concerned about their carbon footprint elsewhere. Soz. He just likes an argument, which is fine.

Stevo_666

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

I'm not sure we do disagree that much. I've agreed that burning wood for power generation is a bad idea. The BedZed development is just around the corner from me and while that started off with a wood pellet fired district heating system it's since been replaced and there's no way you would install a similar system now.

I also agree that trying to find alternative ways to carry on doing the same thing rather than actually changing what we do - developing replacement fuels for ICE vehicles for example - is completely missing the point.

I don't really agree with the last paragraph. As far as we can tell we are the only animal that gives any thought at all to their impact on the environment. I don't think dividing the world into deserving and undeserving species is helpful and I don't think we need any more reasons to give up trying to do better.

We are the only species that does things 'for the sake of it' 'because we can' or for entertainment though. Much of that is causing a negative impact on the planet e.g. being determined to keep driving ICE vehicles because it's fun and they make a pleasing noise or jumping on a plane several times a year to spend two weeks lying in the sun. Whilst I don't think we should stop doing these things completely as life has to be worth living (and we need to keep the economic system we have in place growing) we do all need to think hard about how we can reduce our personal impact on the planet. My main issue with Rick's vision that led to this thread was that it didn't focus enough on changing things to minimise the amount of travel that is needed and instead aimed at changing the way people do that travelling.

^ Correct, mostly :-)

Rick loves to troll these kind of threads, just for the fun of it I think. He may well think that cars are bad and people should stop using them so much, but who cares? On other threads, he's happy to tell you how good he is at computer gaming.

That's almost but not quite as bad as Bitcoin mining when it comes to power wastage. Probably worse when you consider the output of all that burnt energy.

I'm not going to take seriously anyone who claims "green" interests at heart when they clearly aren't remotely concerned about their carbon footprint elsewhere. Soz. He just likes an argument, which is fine.

To be fair, this thread was set up because Rick was polluting the 'Cars' thread with stuff, so this is probably the best place for it. And it does have a suitable warning in the thread title.

Anyhow, it's a nice day so I'm off out for a quick spin in the car

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

Not to mention that burning wood releases carbon absorbed within the last couple of centuries at most, whereas burning coal releases carbon that has been removed from the cycle for hundreds of millions of years.

Old growth forest has far more biodiversity value than can be replaced in 100 years. And Logging old growth is one of Canadas dirty secrets, but it's not ALL coming from old growth.

Wasn't suggesting it was a good thing, just that from an emissions point of view, coal is *much* worse.

Sorry? You’re the one complaining upthread about particulates pollution specifically, making air quality worse. Notwithstanding the furphy about whether coal is a million years old versus a few hundred years for trees, the burning of wood pellets *right now* is considerably worse than coal for pollution in both particulate matter and CO2 emissions in your back yard.

So how is the actual combustion process of coal “much worse”?

You are correct that wood burning - particularly domestic wood burning stoves - is a major source particulate pollution in London (and presumably other cities). Proximity makes a big difference, especially larger PM 10.

That's different from CO2 emissions and overall carbon contribution. The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere in a completely different climate: atmospheric CO2 during the Carboniferous Period was roughly 4 times what it is now. Releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere is more of a problem than releasing carbon that has (in geological terms) only just been absorbed.

There are better and worse ways to turn trees into fuel and some are particularly bad in terms of overall CO2 emissions but I don't think it is correct to state that all wood burnt for generation is in the latter category.

Burning wood for electricity or for heating in suburban and urban areas is probably a bad idea, but still on balance less bad than burning coal.

We’ll agree to disagree. The bit I’ve highlighted in bold is just bullsh1t peddled by the “experts” to justify their choice to burn other stuff and get paid to do it.

Carbon released is carbon released. Power generation is a fairly simple formula: burn something to generate a required amount of heat to drive your generation process. The amount of heat required is the same whether you burn million year old coal or hundred year old wood. You burn whatever you need to get that number.

The emissions created *now* in those 2 processes are directly comparable.

Coal is essentially useless to humanity other than fuel and steel-making. It’s just old landfill. Sheesh, it actually comes from trees doing their thing, capturing carbon, and eventually decaying into dirt -> dust -> coal. Trees on the other hand have a very real function in the biosphere right now, every day, anywhere they exist. Food, shelter, air filtration etc etc, and then when it eventually dies it decays into something that’s still

So remind me, why is killing the tree and burning it before it gets a chance to do short and long term good a better option than burning a lump of (very old) landfill with no other real use?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think burning coal is a good thing either, but anybody who pretends that cutting down forests and burning that instead is “better”, in a process that demonstrably is worse environmentally, is just hypocritically lying through their teeth. Presumably because they are getting paid loads of money to do so.

Until “humanity” collectively gets the message that it’s not about how the power is generated, but what you waste it on doing that is the actual problem it will get nowhere.

So much of what we “do” is intrinsically pointless, wasteful, and trivial. In all honesty, humanity in its current form doesn’t deserve to survive.

I'm not sure we do disagree that much. I've agreed that burning wood for power generation is a bad idea. The BedZed development is just around the corner from me and while that started off with a wood pellet fired district heating system it's since been replaced and there's no way you would install a similar system now.

I also agree that trying to find alternative ways to carry on doing the same thing rather than actually changing what we do - developing replacement fuels for ICE vehicles for example - is completely missing the point.

I don't really agree with the last paragraph. As far as we can tell we are the only animal that gives any thought at all to their impact on the environment. I don't think dividing the world into deserving and undeserving species is helpful and I don't think we need any more reasons to give up trying to do better.

We are the only species that does things 'for the sake of it' 'because we can' or for entertainment though. Much of that is causing a negative impact on the planet e.g. being determined to keep driving ICE vehicles because it's fun and they make a pleasing noise or jumping on a plane several times a year to spend two weeks lying in the sun. Whilst I don't think we should stop doing these things completely as life has to be worth living (and we need to keep the economic system we have in place growing) we do all need to think hard about how we can reduce our personal impact on the planet. My main issue with Rick's vision that led to this thread was that it didn't focus enough on changing things to minimise the amount of travel that is needed and instead aimed at changing the way people do that travelling.

Leaving arguments about other species to one side, I would wholeheartedly agree that more fundamental change is needed than just replacing the fuel source for a wasteful lifestyle. The first priority should be to use less stuff, and only then look at sourcing the stuff we do use as carefully as possible.

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

I'm not sure we do disagree that much. I've agreed that burning wood for power generation is a bad idea. The BedZed development is just around the corner from me and while that started off with a wood pellet fired district heating system it's since been replaced and there's no way you would install a similar system now.

I also agree that trying to find alternative ways to carry on doing the same thing rather than actually changing what we do - developing replacement fuels for ICE vehicles for example - is completely missing the point.

I don't really agree with the last paragraph. As far as we can tell we are the only animal that gives any thought at all to their impact on the environment. I don't think dividing the world into deserving and undeserving species is helpful and I don't think we need any more reasons to give up trying to do better.

We are the only species that does things 'for the sake of it' 'because we can' or for entertainment though. Much of that is causing a negative impact on the planet e.g. being determined to keep driving ICE vehicles because it's fun and they make a pleasing noise or jumping on a plane several times a year to spend two weeks lying in the sun. Whilst I don't think we should stop doing these things completely as life has to be worth living (and we need to keep the economic system we have in place growing) we do all need to think hard about how we can reduce our personal impact on the planet. My main issue with Rick's vision that led to this thread was that it didn't focus enough on changing things to minimise the amount of travel that is needed and instead aimed at changing the way people do that travelling.

^ Correct, mostly :-)

Rick loves to troll these kind of threads, just for the fun of it I think. He may well think that cars are bad and people should stop using them so much, but who cares? On other threads, he's happy to tell you how good he is at computer gaming.

That's almost but not quite as bad as Bitcoin mining when it comes to power wastage. Probably worse when you consider the output of all that burnt energy.

I'm not going to take seriously anyone who claims "green" interests at heart when they clearly aren't remotely concerned about their carbon footprint elsewhere. Soz. He just likes an argument, which is fine.

Not sure where Rick comes into this particular discussion but this reads like a bit of a misanthropic counsel of despair.

rick_chasey

First I've heard of the carbon footprint perils of gaming...

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

First I've heard of the carbon footprint perils of gaming...

TBF, what did you think was powering the servers running online games?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-17/what-is-the-environmental-impact-of-video-games#:~:text=The same study found that,million cars to the road.
Pretty much everything has a footprint.