OVLOV JAY:
Franglais:
Renewable, and Zero Carbon aren’t synonymous, so we need to be careful there too. Biomass burning may be renewable but not zero carbon or environmentally friendly?
Herein lays the problem that our ecoliberal tree hugging friends can’t comprehend. There needs to be a compromise. But these folk are rather uncompromising after all. You can’t have a totally clean source of energy on a scale akin to the national grid. Be it biomass, fossil or nuclear fuels, whatever you burn will emit a certain amount of nasty bi products. Biomass is probably the best route, as it bypasses the need for landfill, but any option means the nasty anti green C word, compromise 
Let’s cut down loads of trees and build loads of nuclear power stations.
All to reduce CO2,which certainly didn’t cook Venus and which the cut down trees would have used to breathe and turn into oxygen.Not to mention the other climatic,environmental and ecological good stuff that forestry creates.
What could possibly go wrong even if we could afford all the electricity when we’ve got it anyway.
OVLOV JAY:
any option means the nasty anti green C word, compromise
It’s obvious that the logical conclusion of the whole agenda.Is an irrational type of mass hysteria,which has brainwashed itself into thinking that a non existent CO2 created greenhouse effect cooked Venus,not its distance from the Sun and atmospheric pressure.
Resulting in an even more insane rush to cut down what remains of the planets trees.Combined with an inevitable nuclear disaster at some point.That’ll fix it.
Cold fusion is the answer, clean, safe and enormous potential. How hard can it be? I’m off this coming weekend so I’ll pop down to my shed and see what I can come up with.
We keep being told that electric is the future, it may well be . The development of electric and hybrid continues at great pace . What is holding up the progress of uptake is the infrastructure to support these vehicles.
Charging points , are we going to see every parking space in the land converted into a charging station?
Our power grid barely copes with peak demand at the moment, they have concerns about the supply to just the proposed new build that is required, add in all the demand for charging all the vehicles and the size of the problem becomes apparent .
By 2040 they won’t have even decided where to build the power stations.
The one being built at the moment is via the Chinese and French and has taken many years .
Imagine if you lived in the far north of Scotland and wanted to holiday in your caravan in Cornwall by the time you drove there it would be time to go home .
Is this really progress .
That is without the doubts over electric being that much more environmentally friendly than ICE .
It will happen but it will more likely be nearer 2100 than 2040 .
Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
the maoster:
Cold fusion is the answer, clean, safe and enormous potential. How hard can it be? I’m off this coming weekend so I’ll pop down to my shed and see what I can come up with.
Phew!
That was close. We’ve been looking for a sensible answer for ages.
OVLOV JAY:
Franglais:
Renewable, and Zero Carbon aren’t synonymous, so we need to be careful there too. Biomass burning may be renewable but not zero carbon or environmentally friendly?
Herein lays the problem that our ecoliberal tree hugging friends can’t comprehend. There needs to be a compromise. But these folk are rather uncompromising after all. You can’t have a totally clean source of energy on a scale akin to the national grid. Be it biomass, fossil or nuclear fuels, whatever you burn will emit a certain amount of nasty bi products. Biomass is probably the best route, as it bypasses the need for landfill, but any option means the nasty anti green C word, compromise
Compromise?
Where?
You can’t re-negotiate a chemical reaction.
The physics of global warming is an absolute. More CO2 equals more climate change.
.
I don’t see what comprises you suggest?
Lancpudn’s link shows that EOS are confident the grid will be there.
.
What we as a country lack is electricity generation capacity.
.
Governments have been frit of taking expensive long term decisions on major projects for ages. Its one of the faults in our democratic system. We as a society don’t do good long term thinking. And we don’t vote for parties that do.
Promise a ten quid a month tax cut, although roads, schools, and hospitals suffer? No problem mate, you’re in!
.
Energy comes at a price (until this weekend when Maoster sorts it anyway). Nothing is free.
.
We’ve just about reached the limit (maybe we’ve already passed it?!) of CO2 production. Excess CO2 equals increasing risk of a runaway temp rise.
.
Tidal basins, off shore wind, wave, farms are needed now. Nuclear is needed to provide reliable base load.
These options are political bad news, and we’ve had decades of obfuscating by too many Governments.
Let’s hope the younger generation get enough time to better than we have.
Franglais:
OVLOV JAY:
Franglais:
Renewable, and Zero Carbon aren’t synonymous, so we need to be careful there too. Biomass burning may be renewable but not zero carbon or environmentally friendly?
Herein lays the problem that our ecoliberal tree hugging friends can’t comprehend. There needs to be a compromise. But these folk are rather uncompromising after all. You can’t have a totally clean source of energy on a scale akin to the national grid. Be it biomass, fossil or nuclear fuels, whatever you burn will emit a certain amount of nasty bi products. Biomass is probably the best route, as it bypasses the need for landfill, but any option means the nasty anti green C word, compromise
Compromise?
Where?
You can’t re-negotiate a chemical reaction.
The physics of global warming is an absolute. More CO2 equals more climate change.
.
I don’t see what comprises you suggest?
Was that satirical, or did you deliberately miss the point? 
OVLOV JAY:
Franglais:
OVLOV JAY:
Franglais:
Renewable, and Zero Carbon aren’t synonymous, so we need to be careful there too. Biomass burning may be renewable but not zero carbon or environmentally friendly?
Herein lays the problem that our ecoliberal tree hugging friends can’t comprehend. There needs to be a compromise. But these folk are rather uncompromising after all. You can’t have a totally clean source of energy on a scale akin to the national grid. Be it biomass, fossil or nuclear fuels, whatever you burn will emit a certain amount of nasty bi products. Biomass is probably the best route, as it bypasses the need for landfill, but any option means the nasty anti green C word, compromise
Compromise?
Where?
You can’t re-negotiate a chemical reaction.
The physics of global warming is an absolute. More CO2 equals more climate change.
.
I don’t see what comprises you suggest?
Was that satirical, or did you deliberately miss the point?
Nowt deliberate!
What did I miss?
There has to be a certain amount of polluting gasses to make energy on the levels a modern country requires. That’s the compromise. Zero emissions are impossible, reduced emissions are achievable
Franglais:
the maoster:
Cold fusion is the answer, clean, safe and enormous potential. How hard can it be? I’m off this coming weekend so I’ll pop down to my shed and see what I can come up with.
Phew!
That was close. We’ve been looking for a sensible answer for ages.
Meanwhile back on the real world of planet Earth.
thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion- … -up-to-be/
Franglais:
You can’t re-negotiate a chemical reaction.
The physics of global warming is an absolute. More CO2 equals more climate change.
.
I don’t see what comprises you suggest?
The only absolute chemical reaction is all in your head.So tell us what chemical reaction is it and exactly how much % real world temperature increase are we talking for every 0.01 % increase in atmospheric CO2 and how much % increase would that be if we burnt all of the world’s remaining fossil fuel reserves ?.On that note surely we’d be seeing the capping of all the world’s oil and gas wells and sealing of coal mines first if we’re supposedly going for a so called fossil fuel free world.Yeah right.Don’t see the civil aviation industry ready to commit commercial suicide in that regard in the foreseeable future and it certainly won’t be able to afford a dedicated aviation only oil supply market.In which it has to pay for every full barrel of crude produced,instead of just its share of that from the distillation process.
While assuming you get your wish for your nuclear fuelled nightmare why would that automatically mean and end to ICE powered vehicles.When they can burn hydrogen just as easily as petrol or diesel.Oh wait that would obviously also provide the solution for the civil aviation industry by returning to piston and propeller powered aircraft.
OVLOV JAY:
There has to be a certain amount of polluting gasses to make energy on the levels a modern country requires. That’s the compromise. Zero emissions are impossible, reduced emissions are achievable
And what also compromising on what a “modern country requires”?
We do need to rethink where we are going.
.
There is no compromise possible in the physics of the situation though.
Assuming you accept that man made CO2 is warming the planet?
There is a point when the climatic system will tip over and even zero emissions from that point on would do nothing. The earth would become uninhabitable. (Except maybe small high tech colonies) The tipping point isn’t exactly known BUT it is there and it is not going to be changed by us. Arguing about shale gas or different forms of taxation or nonsensical offset trading schemes will not affect that point. When it is reached and passed…Yes, We’re Doomed!
You can argue about how much CO2 “modern countries” require. If they require so much CO2 that the planet breaks, then it WILL break.
Franglais:
.
There is no compromise possible in the physics of the situation though.
Assuming you accept that man made CO2 is warming the planet?
There is a point when the climatic system will tip over and even zero emissions from that point on would do nothing. The earth would become uninhabitable. (Except maybe small high tech colonies) The tipping point isn’t exactly known BUT it is there and it is not going to be changed by us. Arguing about shale gas or different forms of taxation or nonsensical offset trading schemes will not affect that point. When it is reached and passed…Yes, We’re Doomed!
You can argue about how much CO2 “modern countries” require. If they require so much CO2 that the planet breaks, then it WILL break.
Why should anyone accept the bs that CO2 is anything other than a beneficial gas that plant life thrives on and actually plays a large part in the planet’s CO2/ Oxygen transposition process as part of that.No surprise that you can’t come up with the maths to back your bs link between any supposed warming and fossil fuel use.Bearing in mind that let’s say we’ve already burnt around almost half of the planet’s fossil fuel reserves with CO2 atmospheric levels showing negligible difference before and after that point.IE let’s say 0.01% by proportion and records showing that not only has the planet survived much higher levels than that but that those much higher levels obviously had nothing whatsoever to do with fossil fuel use.The conclusion being that we continue to be in a historic natural massive reduction of CO2 atmospheric levels regardless of fossil fuel use.In addition to those records proving no direct link between atmospheric CO2 level fluctuations and temperature.While ‘if’ there is any link it’s more likely to be temperature driven in that temperature variations on Earth are the result of fluctuations in orbit and Sun activety which then has an effect on the atmosphere.While the fact that we need the bleedin heating on in June shows that we are also in a historic period of low temperatures compared to others.
On that note the more worrying issue is the reduction in Oxygen levels in which case it’s clear that what CO2 ‘increases’ we ‘might’ have seen are more likely to be the result of deforestation than fossil fuel use.To which the eco loons solution is let’s burn more trees to make electricity in an attempt to correct the CO2 figure.Also might as well turn the place into a radioactive wasteland for good measure.As I said they should be sectioned for their own,let alone the Planet’s, safety.
I’ve just been reading that Ireland is opting for an earlier ICE Ban which is 2030, there is one paragraph in this report that is worrying concerning older vehicles
“The environmental plan also added measures to limit the use of old vehicles, and levy fees on “the production of materials that are difficult to recycle”. In addition to banning the sale of new fossil fuel cars, the government said it would stop granting National Car Test (NCT) certificates to such vehicles by 2045.”
My mate reallocated to southern Ireland a few years ago and shipped his dozen or so classic cars there too, I wonder what the future holds for those cars!!!
electrive.com/2019/06/18/ir … stion-ban/
lancpudn:
I’ve just been reading that Ireland is opting for an earlier ICE Ban which is 2030, there is one paragraph in this report that is worrying concerning older vehicles
“The environmental plan also added measures to limit the use of old vehicles, and levy fees on “the production of materials that are difficult to recycle”. In addition to banning the sale of new fossil fuel cars, the government said it would stop granting National Car Test (NCT) certificates to such vehicles by 2045.”
My mate reallocated to southern Ireland a few years ago and shipped his dozen or so classic cars there too, I wonder what the future holds for those cars!!!
electrive.com/2019/06/18/ir … stion-ban/
What’s the problem with Hydrogen fuelled ICE obviously even including converted classics ?.Bearing in mind that my own MP has clarified/confirmed that Hydrogen fuelled ICE would meet the current Brit proposals even for new cars after the cut off at least.
Carryfast:
lancpudn:
I’ve just been reading that Ireland is opting for an earlier ICE Ban which is 2030, there is one paragraph in this report that is worrying concerning older vehicles
“The environmental plan also added measures to limit the use of old vehicles, and levy fees on “the production of materials that are difficult to recycle”. In addition to banning the sale of new fossil fuel cars, the government said it would stop granting National Car Test (NCT) certificates to such vehicles by 2045.”
My mate reallocated to southern Ireland a few years ago and shipped his dozen or so classic cars there too, I wonder what the future holds for those cars!!!
electrive.com/2019/06/18/ir … stion-ban/
What’s the problem with Hydrogen fuelled ICE obviously even including converted classics ?.Bearing in mind that my own MP has clarified/confirmed that Hydrogen fuelled ICE would meet the current Brit proposals even for new cars after the cut off at least.
Hydrogen isn’t looking too good at present! there was an Hydrogen fuelling station explosion in Norway last week which has closed most of them across Europe. Toyota and Hyundai are giving hydrogen fuel car customers loaner cars and have halted production.
electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen … cell-cars/
lancpudn:
Hydrogen isn’t looking too good at present! there was an Hydrogen fuelling station explosion in Norway last week which has closed most of them across Europe. Toyota and Hyundai are giving hydrogen fuel car customers loaner cars and have halted production.
electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen … cell-cars/
Oh look it’s burning with a yellow flame easily visible in daylight just like petrol.
How bleedin convenient for the EV manufacturers.
While fuel cell vehicles aren’t the same thing as hydrogen fuelled ICE.However either way the obvious loss of investment and profit potential for EV manufacturers,in selling an EV toy at an ICE price and the captive market for battery providers,would obviously explain any conspiracy in that regard.No doubt allied to lentil eating tossers who just don’t like proper engines full stop and will dream up any bs reason to justify their removal.
youtube.com/watch?v=iAkx6-PufDA 8.46 - 10.52
Carryfast:
lancpudn:
Hydrogen isn’t looking too good at present! there was an Hydrogen fuelling station explosion in Norway last week which has closed most of them across Europe. Toyota and Hyundai are giving hydrogen fuel car customers loaner cars and have halted production.
electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen … cell-cars/
Oh look it’s burning with a yellow flame easily visible in daylight just like petrol.
How bleedin convenient for the EV manufacturers.
While fuel cell vehicles aren’t the same thing as hydrogen fuelled ICE.However either way the obvious loss of investment and profit potential for EV manufacturers,in selling an EV toy at an ICE price and the captive market for battery providers,would obviously explain any conspiracy in that regard.No doubt allied to lentil eating tossers who just don’t like proper engines full stop and will dream up any bs reason to justify their removal.
youtube.com/watch?v=iAkx6-PufDA 8.46 - 10.52
That visible fire could be things other than just hydrogen burning. Any fittings and hardware around could have caught fire. Any vehicles will have their upholstery and tyres burning etc.
Hydrogen fueled internal combustion engines will not produce Carbon Dioxide but will produce NOX gases. That is because of the high temps involved. Burning H2 in an engine isn`t the same as burning it in the open air. It seems to be much cleaner than using hydrocarbons and if the NOXes are low enough it could extent the life of classic ICE vehicles.
As a fuel in new builds, fuel cells and electric motors are twice as fuel efficient as ICE H2 burners.
youtube.com/watch?v=1Ajq46qHp0c&t=248s
Convert classics to H2 ? OK. Expensive but do-able.
New H2 ICEs ? Doubtful.
Franglais:
Carryfast:
lancpudn:
Hydrogen isn’t looking too good at present! there was an Hydrogen fuelling station explosion in Norway last week which has closed most of them across Europe. Toyota and Hyundai are giving hydrogen fuel car customers loaner cars and have halted production.
electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen … cell-cars/
Oh look it’s burning with a yellow flame easily visible in daylight just like petrol.
How bleedin convenient for the EV manufacturers.
While fuel cell vehicles aren’t the same thing as hydrogen fuelled ICE.However either way the obvious loss of investment and profit potential for EV manufacturers,in selling an EV toy at an ICE price and the captive market for battery providers,would obviously explain any conspiracy in that regard.No doubt allied to lentil eating tossers who just don’t like proper engines full stop and will dream up any bs reason to justify their removal.
youtube.com/watch?v=iAkx6-PufDA 8.46 - 10.52
That visible fire could be things other than just hydrogen burning. Any fittings and hardware around could have caught fire. Any vehicles will have their upholstery and tyres burning etc.
Hydrogen fueled internal combustion engines will not produce Carbon Dioxide but will produce NOX gases. That is because of the high temps involved. Burning H2 in an engine isn`t the same as burning it in the open air. It seems to be much cleaner than using hydrocarbons and if the NOXes are low enough it could extent the life of classic ICE vehicles.
As a fuel in new builds, fuel cells and electric motors are twice as fuel efficient as ICE H2 burners.
youtube.com/watch?v=1Ajq46qHp0c&t=248s
Convert classics to H2 ? OK. Expensive but do-able.
New H2 ICEs ? Doubtful.
Firstly it’s obvious that we’re looking at a burning fuel flame there.
As for the NOX bs that’s why we have catalytic converters and as we know hydrogen fuelled ICE produces far less NOX than petrol to start with even before the catalyst.While it seems typically convenient how the ICE haters jump from the issue of CO2 to the other non issue of NOX as and when it suits them.
Meanwhile with all this supposedly clean safe plentiful electricity combined with oceans of sea water to get the Hydrogen who gives a zb about fuel consumption. Now awaits the bs that we can’t produce Hydrogen from cracking sea water without eroding the the electrodes too fast.IE as I said any bs excuse to stop those who want to from using those nasty noisy ICE’s.With the manufacturers only too keen to jump on the EV bandwagon for obvious profit motives in charging an ICE price for a battery powered toy.