Zero to Zero | Vital Football

Zero to Zero

mozzer59

Vital Squad Member
#1
Campaign started yesterday by Dale Vince, owner of Ecotricity and Forest Green Rovers to get rid of the tax on carbon neutral/ low carbon products! For example, Solar Panals, the cleanest form of energy is taxed at 20% and coal, the dirtiest form of energy is taxed at 5%! Doesn't make sense! Electric vehicles are taxed the same as cars run on fossil fuels...this needs to change! Fossil fuels burn and thats it, the lithium batteries in an EV last for 10 years and can be recycled! Taxing carbon products higher and remove the tax from non carbon products!
 

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
#2
Gets my vote Mozzer. All new builds should be fitted renewables automatically.

I seriously looked into an air source heat pump to run my underfloor heating a couple of years ago. Even with the grants it was cheaper to run it off the mains gas boiler. Renewables only seem to make financial sense if you can't get mains gas.

That's crazy.

Renewables and microgeneration (at home) has to become mainstream. e also need to develop tidal power to support the grid. Its the one thing that is guaranteed and as an Island we have big tides in places.

I've just come back from a walk through Rochester. The force of the water going under the bridge would drive a turbine all day long
 

Vambogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
#3
THE single most important global issue. Speeding the switch from unsustainable fossil fuels to clean, green planet friendly sources. Biden has put the US back on course by rejoining the Paris Accord. Time for all governments to put in place the support, promotion and example setting to get this done. We have the technology!
 

mozzer59

Vital Squad Member
#4
Gets my vote Mozzer. All new builds should be fitted renewables automatically.

I seriously looked into an air source heat pump to run my underfloor heating a couple of years ago. Even with the grants it was cheaper to run it off the mains gas boiler. Renewables only seem to make financial sense if you can't get mains gas.

That's crazy.

Renewables and microgeneration (at home) has to become mainstream. e also need to develop tidal power to support the grid. Its the one thing that is guaranteed and as an Island we have big tides in places.

I've just come back from a walk through Rochester. The force of the water going under the bridge would drive a turbine all day long
Tidal lagoons and Windmills (sound nicer than turbines) 5,000 Windmills will power the country four times over!
 

jogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
#5
The tide is turning (ho ho) on this and green and environmental issues have crossed political divides and become mainstream. The people are ahead of the politicians, who need to catch up quickly. New builds should certainly have renewable solutions and insulation from the start but what about schools, warehouses and public building? Blather them in solar panels, windmills where appropriate and TURN OFF unnecessary lighting.
 

PhilK66

Vital 1st Team Regular
#6
If you take a return flight to Australia your individual carbon footprint is equal to that of an average family car's annual mileage (8,000 miles)
 

Trev_GFC

Vital Squad Member
#7
Definite environmental, economic and social arguments for a major push in renewable energy.

There are some fantastic new housing developments being built which are responsibly built, look good and pass the savings on to its occupants with far lower bills. The award-winning Goldsmith Street, Norwich (see below, apologies for the source). Marmalade Lane too.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society...d-winning-new-council-houses-goldsmith-street

https://marmaladelane.co.uk/

Build a public transport and utility infrastructure networks fit for the 21st Century as well as advances in electric cars and their charging points, and it’ll be a proud period for our nation. Not to mention the benefit to our economy.

It’s a shame to add a ‘however’ to this post, but in terms of a global level our good is easily outweighed by irresponsible countries like China. We must put pressurehelp these nations.
 

Trev_GFC

Vital Squad Member
#9
I’m disappointed with some of the lack of progression with technology. Kettles are great and taken for granted (look at those Americans boiling water on the stove still) but stupidly inefficient, eating up 6% of all the electricity supplied to British homes. DAB radios. Taps that dispense both hot and cold water. Planes (meagre improvements in efficiencies these last load of decades). Electrical appliances which need to be on standby in order for stupid updates.

Yes, it’s great having an increase in renewable energy sources but with increased efficiencies in the products we use we can lower demand while cutting bills. Cutting bills means more disposable income and less money going out of the local economy to French etc energy suppliers.
 

ARFUR CONNELL

Vital Youth Team
#11
Campaign started yesterday by Dale Vince, owner of Ecotricity and Forest Green Rovers to get rid of the tax on carbon neutral/ low carbon products! For example, Solar Panals, the cleanest form of energy is taxed at 20% and coal, the dirtiest form of energy is taxed at 5%! Doesn't make sense! Electric vehicles are taxed the same as cars run on fossil fuels...this needs to change! Fossil fuels burn and thats it, the lithium batteries in an EV last for 10 years and can be recycled! Taxing carbon products higher and remove the tax from non carbon products!
Commendable campaign, but if you think HMG is going to ditch vehicle tax on E.V.s, I think you're mistaken.
 

alphabet_king

Vital 1st Team Regular
#12
I've never understood how that calculation could be worked out
Im not sure how you couldn't understand how it would be worked out?

They would calculate the carbon footprint for the average flight to aus, and divide it by the number of passengers onboard the plane.

They would then calculate the carbon footprint for an average car driving 8000 miles...and compare the two. Is this not the obvious approach to take?

Apparently the two figures are approximately the same (although the OP doesn't quote any sources so it could well be classic social media fake news). But the principle is that it would be fairly easy to work that out and it could be crudely worked out by anyone with access to google really.

Of course this is a little crude and wouldn't include other impacts, such as things like cost of building the car, or plane, or the cost of getting to the airport. But the assumption is that these are negligible impacts compared with the key carbon footprint calculated.
 
Last edited:

Trev_GFC

Vital Squad Member
#14
Im not sure how you couldn't understand this?

They would calculate the carbon footprint for the average flight, and divide it by the number of passengers onboard the plane.

They would then calculate the carbon footprint for an average car driving 8000 miles.

Apparently the two are the same (although the OP doesn't quote any sources so it could well be classic social media fake news). But it could clearly be worked out by anyone with access to google really.
I would also imagine there’s a multiplier being used, due to the fact that expelling emissions at that altitude is more damaging. Surely that multiplier would be more difficult to quantify.
 

Trev_GFC

Vital Squad Member
#15

mozzer59

Vital Squad Member
#16
Bird deaths from windmills is much lower than from transport, buildings, cats, pollution etc! The former president says that windmills cause cancer 😂
 

alphabet_king

Vital 1st Team Regular
#17
I would also imagine there’s a multiplier being used, due to the fact that expelling emissions at that altitude is more damaging. Surely that multiplier would be more difficult to quantify.
Ive no idea, i hadnt even considered that. However the googling i did did actually come up with 'evidence'/figures that the original assertion is actually broadly correct (no idea about your assertion though), and focused purely on the weight in kg of carbon dioxide emitted by each of the methods. didnt mention the height being a factor at all. In fact i guess it makes it even worse if not only is there the same amount of kg expelled, but its even more harmful as well.
 
Last edited:

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
#18
I've never understood how that calculation could be worked out
Modern jet engines are really efficient, surprisingly so to many people. That's why BA retired all the 747s as their fuel burn is much higher than the more modern engines.

I did a calculation once to compare the co2 per passenger mile of a flight to Munich compared to driving.

It assumes all seats taken on the plane but with a modern neo engine it was more fuel efficient per passenger mile than a car.

High speed Trains are the most fuel efficient of all especially if the energy was generated through renewables.

All travel has an impact but flying isn't the evil some claim it to be. Although a few people in a private jet is very bad !!!
 

ThreeSixes

Vital 1st Team Regular
#20
Im not sure how you couldn't understand how it would be worked out?

They would calculate the carbon footprint for the average flight to aus, and divide it by the number of passengers onboard the plane.

They would then calculate the carbon footprint for an average car driving 8000 miles...and compare the two. Is this not the obvious approach to take?
.
Well that's obviously not the answer no. If a plane has 350 passengers, your personal carbon footprint isn't 1/350th of it. A jumbojet plane that has 1 passenger doesn't have 1/350th of the carbon footprint of a full plan with 350 passengers does it? It is roughly the same (a boeing 747 weighs 183,500kg or the same as 3,000 people, and then you have fuel & freight). If you have a ticket, but decide not to fly, the plane will still fly, but with 1 empty seat. It isn't 349/350th of the plane that flies

You would need to work out the carbon footprint of a plane full of passengers, minus the carbon footprint of an empty plane, and then divide the difference between the number of passengers. If this equates to 8,000 car miles of petrol, it shows just how much a plane pollutes