NG Green. Ten years - not a chance..
- Thread starter LancsGordoRoad
- Start date
chris who
Vital Champions League
Dead against the destruction of the canals they show off some of the most beautiful parts of England. English holiday hotels have enough problems already. Our canals are a thing of beauty weather you are into walking cycling or boating or even paddle boarding they attract holiday makers and day trippers in vast numbers. I well remember a few canal boat holidays masses of fun .The canals are part of out rich heritage every bit as much if not a lot more than any football ground you could mention Priestfield stadium apart of course.
markinkent
Vital Football Hero
Valid points Chris but the problem with a small country is that we can't keep everything and keep adding new things as well. We just don't have the land mass.
You mentioned on another post the need for an integrated transport network. The canals were exactly that but rather than move goods at a slow pace we now need the rapid movement of people between cities to rival the simplicity and relative low cost use of personal cars. Lancs idea has merit in my view but would destroy canals as you outline.
Something has to give. We just have to prioritise. Glad I don't have to decide.
You mentioned on another post the need for an integrated transport network. The canals were exactly that but rather than move goods at a slow pace we now need the rapid movement of people between cities to rival the simplicity and relative low cost use of personal cars. Lancs idea has merit in my view but would destroy canals as you outline.
Something has to give. We just have to prioritise. Glad I don't have to decide.
chris who
Vital Champions League
Generally on this I don't think we are far apart .But what I find incredibly silly is they talk about carbon zero and the new runway at Heathrow at the same time.To get to net zero we have to cut the number of flights. Get people to think greener by encouraging people to use the transport we have trains and buses run empty a massive amount. Trams would be no different once the novelty wore off. But at present it is miles cheaper to fly to Scotland for example than get the train. Next cheapest would be by car .Finally by train coming in at a daft amount of money. That is much the same regardless of distance. No point in putting on more transport without addressing the real issue here COST.
I remember reading about a bloke that wanted to travel home to Cardiff I think it was from Derby. It turned out it was cheaper for him to fly to Munich and back to Cardiff and have a cheap overnight hotel and meal .Than do the trip straight home by train .
Detritus
Vital Squad Member
Baghdad_Rob
Vital 1st Team Regular
What do you mean there is not much point?
If you can get people to use electric cars for all short / medium distance travel then that would make a massive impact to the CO2 emissions etc even if for practical reasons long distance travel for some commuters and trucks etc would continue to use the combustion engine.
Even hybrid cars that are half combustion and half electric would make a major impact with a 90% take up.
It is not about irradiating all emissions but reducing them enough that that it falls into the level that the world can sustain itself.
I'm sure you didn't mean to link the last quoted line with the line before it as obviously as the UK is an island and trains and buses are obviously not a replacement for fights when it comes to the worlds largest international hub that is Heathrow. On the assumption you probably mean internal flights from London to places like Glasgow then this is relatively small compared with emissions from international flights from Heathrow (or Gatwick).
But it maybe isn't entirely true to say we need to cut flights in order to get to be carbon neutral. If we don't cut flights then the UK would need to find cuts elsewhere.
Personally when it comes to reliable energy supply, I'm for replacing all fossil fuel power stations with nuclear power. That would have a major impact.
jogills
Vital Football Hero
Hybrid cars now exposed as failing to make the environmental impact they claim and running on electric for a very small part of the time. Nuclear power may have a small part to play but is far and away the most expensive form of energy now and will require big public investment and ongoing support. The actual building of large nuclear plants has a huge environmental impact too.
RotherhitheGill
Vital 1st Team Regular
It's not the building and operating of nuclear plants that I would worry about, it's getting rid of the resulting waste that is the problem.
chris who
Vital Champions League
Yes I was talking about international as well as those aboard .Flights they are what is doing more than anything to damage our planet. Make them much more expensive. Each flight should be made pay for the damage they make at least half the cost of any damage.And subsidise trains .I looked at trains last time we went to see our friend in Switzerland. I wasn't the time (about 9 hours) which wasn't that much longer when you consider the extra time needed at airports. it was the cost that was prohibitive. People need to be encouraged to stay local for holidays etc if they possibly can .The wife and I will not fly again. In my view that is something we can do without cost to help save our planet. There are millions of other opportunities places to go and enjoy that I will never run out of options.
Baghdad_Rob
Vital 1st Team Regular
What percentage of people use hybrid cars? If 90% of the population were using them and only using the combustion engine to effectively recharge the electric battery when used up (I believe the BMW i3 hybrid is designed this way) then it all adds up.
Of course, this issue does depend on the car maker and how the electric and combustion engine are designed to interact. If, as per the BMW defintion of a hybrid you are supposed to use the electric engine to drive and then only use the combustion engine to drive you to your destination / recharge point then you will be using a significantly smaller amount of petrol compared with a hybrid which both engines are running with the combustion engine providing extra power when needed or vice versa.
QUOTE="jogills, post: 2552978, member: 13520"]Nuclear power may have a small part to play but is far and away the most expensive form of energy now and will require big public investment and ongoing support. The actual building of large nuclear plants has a huge environmental impact too.[/QUOTE]
Is a large investment in power infrastructure a bad thing?
markinkent
Vital Football Hero
I had a hybrid car as hire car once. Boston, Mass up to New Hampshire, a week commuting from hotel to work and back to Boston. I probably drove about 200 miles tops. It was in electric mode 50% of the time. Not sure what conclusion to draw from that.
I would love to buy an electric car next. However I will only own one car so it needs to be multipurpose i.e. commuting, social/domestic AND the occasional long trip. The initial purchase price needs to be comparative with a petrol/diesel option and finally I need to be confident that I can easily and conveniently charge it when away from home.
We then to make sure that have we have the power generation capacity if we all go electric.
We also need to make sure we are being fair when discussing air travel. Modern and efficient aircraft are less polluting (per passenger mile) than you might think.
They rank well against cars (especially with single occupancy which many cars have)
I would love to buy an electric car next. However I will only own one car so it needs to be multipurpose i.e. commuting, social/domestic AND the occasional long trip. The initial purchase price needs to be comparative with a petrol/diesel option and finally I need to be confident that I can easily and conveniently charge it when away from home.
We then to make sure that have we have the power generation capacity if we all go electric.
We also need to make sure we are being fair when discussing air travel. Modern and efficient aircraft are less polluting (per passenger mile) than you might think.
They rank well against cars (especially with single occupancy which many cars have)
jogills
Vital Football Hero
Is a large investment in power infrastructure a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
The BMW i3 hybrid costs between £38,785 & £43,315 and there are plenty of very useable fully electric cars in that range. It's a bit of an outlier because it is more weighted to electric than petrol unlike the majority of hybrids. Hybrids have come out poorly from recent research and many look like a last ditch rearguard action by the manufacturers. Surveys have shown that most purchasers are driven by the government grant rather than enviromental concerns. That suggests we need to target grants better.
Is large investment in power infrastucture a bad thing? Clearly not but it's best to spend wisely and going for the generation that costs easily the most per KwH would be bonkers. Big nuclear has very long costs into the future, which would have to be underwritten by government. Much cheaper sources of power exist but some limited nuclear may need to be part of the mix.
alphabet_king
Vital 1st Team Regular
Does it?
Why does road building projects have anything to do with zero emissions? The govt are not necessarily trying to reduce the number of cars on the road. That will pretty much never happen unless someone invents teleportation.
The focus instead is on making the energy that propells the cars zero emissions, so it will be irrelevant how many of them there are or aren't on the road.
jokerman
Vital Football Hero
The BMW i3 hybrid costs between £38,785 & £43,315 and there are plenty of very useable fully electric cars in that range. It's a bit of an outlier because it is more weighted to electric than petrol unlike the majority of hybrids. Hybrids have come out poorly from recent research and many look like a last ditch rearguard action by the manufacturers. Surveys have shown that most purchasers are driven by the government grant rather than enviromental concerns. That suggests we need to target grants better.
Is large investment in power infrastucture a bad thing? Clearly not but it's best to spend wisely and going for the generation that costs easily the most per KwH would be bonkers. Big nuclear has very long costs into the future, which would have to be underwritten by government. Much cheaper sources of power exist but some limited nuclear may need to be part of the mix.[/QUOTE]
Are we talking about hybrids like the ordinary Prius or plug-in hybrids? I'm with James May on regular hybrids -all nearly all the energy is generated by fuel. Some I'3's have a just in case motorcycle engine for those with range anxiety, so they and the pure version spend most of the time running on juice. The trouble with the other hybrids -like the Volt/Ampere and Prius Plus is often the drivers. The thirty mile or so range is really good for a great deal of motorists -15 miles there and back to work and plug in overnight. But if you are making longer trips regularly, or if you are just plain lazy or unable to plug in, they turn into really inefficient hybrids with a small petrol engine lugging a battery and electric motor around. When we parted with ours, it was claiming a lifetime of 78 miles to the US gallon. Even so, I would have thought plug in hybrids a good option for places where petrol is expensive and not using it is thus incentivized, and trips are relatively short. I see the Disco Sport Phev has run into trouble. They can't seem to get the 39 miles promised out of the battery.
Baghdad_Rob
Vital 1st Team Regular
Yes the BMW hybrid might be a bit of an outlier right now but as you say it is more weighted to electric than petrol. Electric hybrids are relatively new in the grand scheme of things with car manufacturers all trying different things to get the right balance. It is hard to generalise as the hybrids have been designed with different ideas in mind, but from what I can tell, a lot of manufacturers have a higher reliance on the combustion engine due to a distrust of the power of the electric engine and the battery life and see the electric engine as a way of boosting the power of a smaller than normal engine. But this is me looking in casually and only reading a few articles with no intention of buying a hybrid.
The advantage of the BMW hybrid over purely electric is the fact the maximum range isn't dictated by the power of the battery. If the battery is dead then you can still drive the car. If the technology is correctly used where combustion is only used when the battery has died then overall emissions will dramatically decrease if all manufacturers go down this development path.
Hybrids are a relatively new technology and there is a lot of development to go in terms of making batteries between while trying to get electric engines to be as efficient (powerful?) as combustion engines.
LancsGordoRoad
Vital Champions League
My absolute guess of a conclusion is that you were commuting just over the Mass/NH border into the Nashua/Manchester area ? Hopefully you got to explore the more eastern and north eastern parts of NH - beautiful.
jokerman
Vital Football Hero
The other downside of hybrids of course is complexity. You've still got all the complexities and high-servicing requirements of an internal combustion engine plus you have the complexity of mating the two systems so the car can go back and forth between them when it has to and when it thinks best.
markinkent
Vital Football Hero
You win the prize. Nashua it was. Been a few times now. I like it. I haven't explored anywhere sadly - all work and no play. One day I will holiday over there and travel all around NH and Maine.
I also love the short commute from Logan. My previous regular trip was JFK and then a 5 hour drive upstate. The Delaware gap was a beautiful drive but about five hours too long !!!
I love the TV series American from Above or something like that. They use drones to fly over the states and tell you interesting facts about what you seeing. Beautiful landscape.
