RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:


Power could be generated by renewable energy, or potentially in the longer term even fusion could be possible. Hydrogen on the other hand is primarily produced by steam reformation of hydrocarbon fuels with CO₂ as a product.

Point is surely that we should be moving away from using hydrocarbons?? No?

If there is a practical alternative then I'm all for it. But renewables aren't effective enough at the moment. But limiting ourselves to the constraints of wind and solar whilst looking to add to the load is a bad idea.
Any alternative has to be practicable for a major economy, no?

Who says we must limit ourselves to one method of electrical energy generation? The key point is to reduce emissions, especially in our living areas (such as cities). Fossil fuels with carbon capture could be used while we improve efficiency of renewable sources. Onshore wind is cost-effective enough, but indeed some of the other renewable sources need investment and improvement. But we are talking about the future here, I think we can assume progress on that front. I think we can also assume progress on the battery front - Lithium is not the only option, there will be new alternatives that promise more capacity and are more environmentally friendly as we are already starting to see. But we are talking about a 10-20 year vision.

I'm in my mid-50s, and fusion generation has been 10-20 years away all my life.
I've also worked extensively with batteries for industrial equipment for the last 20 years, and in the last 10 of those there have been incremental improvements in Lithium batteries. There has been a constant stream of articles in the scientific press about the next "replacement" for Lithium, none of which have made the breakthrough to commercial production. I guess, eventually, something that works may crop up, but there is no guarantee, and certainly no guarantee that it will be any less environmentally destructive than Lithium.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: If there is a practical alternative then I'm all for it. But renewables aren't effective enough at the moment. But limiting ourselves to the constraints of wind and solar whilst looking to add to the load is a bad idea.
Any alternative has to be practicable for a major economy, no?

Who says we must limit ourselves to one method of electrical energy generation? The key point is to reduce emissions, especially in our living areas (such as cities). Fossil fuels with carbon capture could be used while we improve efficiency of renewable sources. Onshore wind is cost-effective enough, but indeed some of the other renewable sources need investment and improvement. But we are talking about the future here, I think we can assume progress on that front. I think we can also assume progress on the battery front - Lithium is not the only option, there will be new alternatives that promise more capacity and are more environmentally friendly as we are already starting to see. But we are talking about a 10-20 year vision.

I'm in my mid-50s, and fusion generation has been 10-20 years away all my life.
I've also worked extensively with batteries for industrial equipment for the last 20 years, and in the last 10 of those there have been incremental improvements in Lithium batteries. There has been a constant stream of articles in the scientific press about the next "replacement" for Lithium, none of which have made the breakthrough to commercial production. I guess, eventually, something that works may crop up, but there is no guarantee, and certainly no guarantee that it will be any less environmentally destructive than Lithium.

I guess it's harder to look to the future when you don't have much ahead of you.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Who says we must limit ourselves to one method of electrical energy generation? The key point is to reduce emissions, especially in our living areas (such as cities). Fossil fuels with carbon capture could be used while we improve efficiency of renewable sources. Onshore wind is cost-effective enough, but indeed some of the other renewable sources need investment and improvement. But we are talking about the future here, I think we can assume progress on that front. I think we can also assume progress on the battery front - Lithium is not the only option, there will be new alternatives that promise more capacity and are more environmentally friendly as we are already starting to see. But we are talking about a 10-20 year vision.

I'm in my mid-50s, and fusion generation has been 10-20 years away all my life.
I've also worked extensively with batteries for industrial equipment for the last 20 years, and in the last 10 of those there have been incremental improvements in Lithium batteries. There has been a constant stream of articles in the scientific press about the next "replacement" for Lithium, none of which have made the breakthrough to commercial production. I guess, eventually, something that works may crop up, but there is no guarantee, and certainly no guarantee that it will be any less environmentally destructive than Lithium.

I guess it's harder to look to the future when you don't have much ahead of you.

It's certainly harder when not smoking whatever you are smoking

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: If there is a practical alternative then I'm all for it. But renewables aren't effective enough at the moment. But limiting ourselves to the constraints of wind and solar whilst looking to add to the load is a bad idea.
Any alternative has to be practicable for a major economy, no?

Who says we must limit ourselves to one method of electrical energy generation? The key point is to reduce emissions, especially in our living areas (such as cities). Fossil fuels with carbon capture could be used while we improve efficiency of renewable sources. Onshore wind is cost-effective enough, but indeed some of the other renewable sources need investment and improvement. But we are talking about the future here, I think we can assume progress on that front. I think we can also assume progress on the battery front - Lithium is not the only option, there will be new alternatives that promise more capacity and are more environmentally friendly as we are already starting to see. But we are talking about a 10-20 year vision.

I'm not suggesting we limit ourselves to one type of renewable, merely that there are current significant constraints with that form of electricity. These will hopefully change and improve, there are no guarantees but I wouldn't argue that it's reasonable to expect that it's likely that there will be.

I still dispute th 10-20 year vision though. That timeframe works with a viable alternative already in place. Currently electric cars don't have the range that all users need, and that's before we consider heavy vehicles. Realistically, the electric , or alternative, solution needs to be in place and becoming widely accepted. Then, once the end for petrol and diesel is less clear, you have a period of time where electric infrastructure is allowed to grow as the threat of a ban is discussed, probably over a decade at least before implementation, allowing all road users a fair chance of upgrading.

We're not talking ten years, more like 25-30 provided that a viable solution can be found, which in the case of electric,Evans a much quicker recharge time, better range, wider application across all vehicle types and the infrastructure to allow recharge and generate the power in the first place. With threats of brownouts if existing generation isn't upgraded or replaced, adding a whole new burden to the national grid is a recipe for disaster.

You mention heavy vehicles. We always seem to look for a complicated solution in the UK. We already have an almost entirely electrified rail network. We need to incentivise the shift of freight from lorry to train.

Whilst we are at it we need to find a way to stop the use of enormous articulated lorries as end point delivery vehicles. Have a huge lorry try to drop of the required stock to you local coop is just not appropriate. They cause traffic congestion, they cause noise pollution and they spew diesel fumes everywhere.

So to recap. Use the electric rail network. Build rail spurs to transport hubs and deliver to shops in much smaller, possibly electric vans.

Can't find it now but read an article a week or so ago reporting research that suggested electric cars are actually more polluting than combustion engines, due to the extra weight of the batterie, the heavier vehicles throw more particles up into the air off the roads and are thus more harmful as they make us breath in more particulates.

Sounds plausible but no idea if it's true. I read it in a paper and the standard of science reporting is generally in the toilet, so the article could be anywhere on a truth scale from 'Tony Blair' to 'Dalai Lama' (assuming he tells the truth)

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Who says we must limit ourselves to one method of electrical energy generation? The key point is to reduce emissions, especially in our living areas (such as cities). Fossil fuels with carbon capture could be used while we improve efficiency of renewable sources. Onshore wind is cost-effective enough, but indeed some of the other renewable sources need investment and improvement. But we are talking about the future here, I think we can assume progress on that front. I think we can also assume progress on the battery front - Lithium is not the only option, there will be new alternatives that promise more capacity and are more environmentally friendly as we are already starting to see. But we are talking about a 10-20 year vision.

I'm not suggesting we limit ourselves to one type of renewable, merely that there are current significant constraints with that form of electricity. These will hopefully change and improve, there are no guarantees but I wouldn't argue that it's reasonable to expect that it's likely that there will be.

I still dispute th 10-20 year vision though. That timeframe works with a viable alternative already in place. Currently electric cars don't have the range that all users need, and that's before we consider heavy vehicles. Realistically, the electric , or alternative, solution needs to be in place and becoming widely accepted. Then, once the end for petrol and diesel is less clear, you have a period of time where electric infrastructure is allowed to grow as the threat of a ban is discussed, probably over a decade at least before implementation, allowing all road users a fair chance of upgrading.

We're not talking ten years, more like 25-30 provided that a viable solution can be found, which in the case of electric,Evans a much quicker recharge time, better range, wider application across all vehicle types and the infrastructure to allow recharge and generate the power in the first place. With threats of brownouts if existing generation isn't upgraded or replaced, adding a whole new burden to the national grid is a recipe for disaster.

You mention heavy vehicles. We always seem to look for a complicated solution in the UK. We already have an almost entirely electrified rail network. We need to incentivise the shift of freight from lorry to train.

Whilst we are at it we need to find a way to stop the use of enormous articulated lorries as end point delivery vehicles. Have a huge lorry try to drop of the required stock to you local coop is just not appropriate. They cause traffic congestion, they cause noise pollution and they spew diesel fumes everywhere.

So to recap. Use the electric rail network. Build rail spurs to transport hubs and deliver to shops in much smaller, possibly electric vans.

There's plenty more work needed before trains can operate n this way. I'd be more than happy to get ore Lorries off the road, but we rely too much on them because rail just can deliver. Not to mention that rail is fricking expensive. The commuting costs are ridiculous.

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 65616.html

According to some reports, Norway is generating more power than it needs and can thus afford to generate the electricity required for such a move. The UK is barely meeting the current requirement, never mind the additional need for a wholesale move to electric cars.

At this rate, it will take us to 2035 just to get sufficient generation in place.

2025 is extremely tight but

Battery technology will improve.
Renewable technology will improve - my money is on photovoltaics.
A ban on petrol and diesels would spur some investment in battery technology and electric (and hydrogen) cars generally.
There is no hydrogen network.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:2025 is extremely tight but

Battery technology will improve.
Renewable technology will improve - my money is on photovoltaics.
A ban on petrol and diesels would spur some investment in battery technology and electric (and hydrogen) cars generally.
There is no hydrogen network.

Our economy is hugely dependent on petrol and diesel. Ten years to develop and allow new technology to become marketable enough for everyday people, plus the corresponding growth immediately power generation and also public transport?

If the government made it a goal to have 50% of vehicles electric by 2025, with high 90% by the mid 2030s with huge incentives for car development, associated infrastructure, plus investment in generation (bearing in mind today's press article in the non viability of additional wind power in England which means power generation that isn't popular, and you might get close enough to consider a ban. Ten years from now to a total ban is insane. The government won't fund it given austerity and it's too short a timeframe to get much in the way of partnerships agreed.

I'd rather see huge incentives with a ban threatened when the vast majority of vehicles are no longer diesel and petrol.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:2025 is extremely tight but

Battery technology will improve.
Renewable technology will improve - my money is on photovoltaics.
A ban on petrol and diesels would spur some investment in battery technology and electric (and hydrogen) cars generally.
There is no hydrogen network.

Our economy is hugely dependent on petrol and diesel. Ten years to develop and allow new technology to become marketable enough for everyday people, plus the corresponding growth immediately power generation and also public transport?

If the government made it a goal to have 50% of vehicles electric by 2025, with high 90% by the mid 2030s with huge incentives for car development, associated infrastructure, plus investment in generation (bearing in mind today's press article in the non viability of additional wind power in England which means power generation that isn't popular, and you might get close enough to consider a ban. Ten years from now to a total ban is insane. The government won't fund it given austerity and it's too short a timeframe to get much in the way of partnerships agreed.

I'd rather see huge incentives with a ban threatened when the vast majority of vehicles are no longer diesel and petrol.

The original article was talking about the Netherlands whih is geographically smaller and flatter which makes it more feasible. Here, it's probably not feasible in that timescale given how long it takes us to get through the planning process for anything.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:2025 is extremely tight but

Battery technology will improve.
Renewable technology will improve - my money is on photovoltaics.
A ban on petrol and diesels would spur some investment in battery technology and electric (and hydrogen) cars generally.
There is no hydrogen network.

Our economy is hugely dependent on petrol and diesel. Ten years to develop and allow new technology to become marketable enough for everyday people, plus the corresponding growth immediately power generation and also public transport?

If the government made it a goal to have 50% of vehicles electric by 2025, with high 90% by the mid 2030s with huge incentives for car development, associated infrastructure, plus investment in generation (bearing in mind today's press article in the non viability of additional wind power in England which means power generation that isn't popular, and you might get close enough to consider a ban. Ten years from now to a total ban is insane. The government won't fund it given austerity and it's too short a timeframe to get much in the way of partnerships agreed.

I'd rather see huge incentives with a ban threatened when the vast majority of vehicles are no longer diesel and petrol.

The original article was talking about the Netherlands whih is geographically smaller and flatter which makes it more feasible. Here, it's probably not feasible in that timescale given how long it takes us to get through the planning process for anything.

Ah, apologies I hadn't realised you were referring to the OP.

In 10 years time we might have a drawing on the back of a beer mat for a new power station, but then again we might not.

Of course, the other obvious way of doing things is to make the targets, and eventual bans on new cars; not all cars; and to phase it in with targets; whilst obviously increasing the amount of electricity produced to meet the growing demands - and these 2 really will need to have joined-up-thinking involved.

Personally, I'm still a fan of algae farming for biofuel; that stuff requires no change in infrastructure (it's easier to transport and store than oil), is doable with existing tech, gives a much cleaner burn than petrol, and can be produced by much more "stable" countries (Australia is pretty-much perfect, as are many of the states in USA, much more of Africa; unfortunately, Saudi Arabia would also be perfect)... if they can get planning permissions etc. ETA - it should, in theory, be perfectly possible to manufacture off-shore as well; expensive, but makes planning etc much easier to get; IIRC current tech can produce 100,000 gallons per acre per year, a few man-made islands in shallow water may be worthwhile. Of course, further into the future (find the right extremophile algae) these things could be grown underground, or submarine - doubtful to be anywhere near as efficient though.
Of course, it's still expensive; and the UK doesn't really have the right climate for production, but hey.

Hell, with algae farming; if the political will (and finance, and some tech advances) were there; it would be a fantastic way to carbon trap existing CO2, and put it back in the earth - essentially, we potentially could replace the oils stocks we're burned.