Together in Electric Dreams

[FTBBCVoodoo]

15 minutes ago, C.B said:

 

Not sure if we have any red dwarf fans on here, but they make a joke that the human race is basically a planetary virus. Seems pretty accurate to me..

Alright Dwaine Dibley 😉

[Guest]

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

 

So you use solar/wind/nuclear to extract you hydrogen from water. You carry it in tankers and store it underground. Car drives up attaches hose and fills car in about a minute. Drives off emitting water.

 

But as womble points out cars not necessarily the problem. Diesel ships, energy used for heating cooling and significantly agriculture massively out weight public transport.

 

But I suppose to make changes the public has to be weaned off first.

 

There is stuff you don't even think about when picking up your groceries in your new hybrid.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-07-meat-dairy-industry-track-surpass.amp

 

 

 

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[Toothy]

Hyundai has started producing some of the first accessible Hydrogen vehicles. This is really where we are heading. Converting the current petrol stations over to supply that instead of fossil fuels.
Meanwhile Battery tech will become ever better and popular. A PHEV vehicle with hydrogen rather than petrol seems the holy grail. BEVs for smaller city cars.

[Linas.P]

10 hours ago, NemesisUK said:

Emissions are far better and easily controlled in a centralised generation location, than scattered across the map.

The actions/mileage of the driver of a ZEV has no impact on global warming..

That is assumption not a fact. Theoretically - yes you are correct, in practice the emission controls on large polluters are lax, they receive fines which are known as "cost of doing business", because it is cheaper to pay fine once in a while then continuously maintain emissions control.

Nothing is 0 carbon emission, not even ZEV... so.. no you wrong ZEVs still have impact on global warming. However, this is discussion is trivial - if we going to stop driving our 1 billion ICE cars worldwide we going reduce emission by ~1-2% that is all. 

Not the same story about manufacturing, where emissions are ~50%, making new ZEV would be included into that pollution. So effectively replacing ICE with ZEV we actually going to pollute MORE! What we actually need to do is to reduce consumption, once the car is made we need to try to keep it going as long as possible (and that includes all other goods, especially disposable or semi-disposable ones). 

Car driving is not a global issue (global warming is), car driving is only an issue in city centers.. 

BTW... I guess this is not part of the discussion anyway, so sorry for making off-topic.

Whereas I don't think we going to convert majority of the fleet for over 20 years, I don't mind having PHEV or EV as long as other parts of the car meets my needs... 0-60, RWD, well build, luxury (Tesla so far is the best, but it is neither well built, nor really luxury in my definition). So I am looking at owning PHEV right now and EV maybe in 5-10 years time.

[CallTheBall]

29 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That is assumption not a fact. Theoretically - yes you are correct, in practice the emission controls on large polluters are lax, they receive fines which are known as "cost of doing business", because it is cheaper to pay fine once in a while then continuously maintain emissions control.

Nothing is 0 carbon emission, not even ZEV... so.. no you wrong ZEVs still have impact on global warming. However, this is discussion is trivial - if we going to stop driving our 1 billion ICE cars worldwide we going reduce emission by ~1-2% that is all. 

Not the same story about manufacturing, where emissions are ~50%, making new ZEV would be included into that pollution. So effectively replacing ICE with ZEV we actually going to pollute MORE! What we actually need to do is to reduce consumption, once the car is made we need to try to keep it going as long as possible (and that includes all other goods, especially disposable or semi-disposable ones). 

Car driving is not a global issue (global warming is), car driving is only an issue in city centers.. 

BTW... I guess this is not part of the discussion anyway, so sorry for making off-topic.

Whereas I don't think we going to convert majority of the fleet for over 20 years, I don't mind having PHEV or EV as long as other parts of the car meets my needs... 0-60, RWD, well build, luxury (Tesla so far is the best, but it is neither well built, nor really luxury in my definition). So I am looking at owning PHEV right now and EV maybe in 5-10 years time.

Very interesting.

I've always thought that car manufacturers should be forced to develop their vehicles so that they support a plug n play architecture. In the world of computers things are designed to be easily replaced e.g. new hard drive, new video card etc. Wouldn't be great if the car industry worked in the same way. For example, when a new more efficient engine is available, a consumer can just get it fitted to their existing car rather than replacing the whole vehicle.

The economic cost of manufacturing new vehicles must be enormous!

[Guest]

Most cars seem to fall apart around the engine - not the other way around.

But you make a good point and your current car can be converted to run on hydrogen I believe. 

A fuel cell car will use hydrogen to generate electric and drive motors, but you could burn it in a combustion engine. 

https://pureenergycentre.com/hydrogen-engine/

[CallTheBall]

2 minutes ago, Comedian said:

Most cars seem to fall apart around the engine - not the other way around.

But you make a good point and your current car can be converted to run on hydrogen I believe. 

A fuel cell car will use hydrogen to generate electric and drive motors, but you could burn it in a combustion engine. 

https://pureenergycentre.com/hydrogen-engine/

Absolutely.

There are so many parts in a car that never wear out. Seems crazy that every few years people replace the whole car!

[noby76]

23 minutes ago, CallTheBall said:

 Wouldn't be great if the car industry worked in the same way. For example, when a new more efficient engine is available, a consumer can just get it fitted to their existing car rather than replacing the whole vehicle.

The economic cost of manufacturing new vehicles must be enormous!

Thing is they make way more money leasing new cars than developing an idea of swapping around drive trains if and when new technology comes in.

[Linas.P]

@CallTheBall - environmental cost, not economical -economically is beneficial to manufacture new cars,  but environmentally it is very costly.

And overly draconian insurance categories - how many perfectly good cars gets written-off for minor non-structural damages. My car nearly got written off few weeks ago for a scratch! We need to be more considerate before throwing things away.

As for why they don't do it - yes that is economical benefit. You can make more money by selling whole new car... it is not in manufacturers interest to keep those cars running forever.

[Ala Larj]

1 minute ago, Linas.P said:

As for why they don't do it - yes that is economical benefit. You can make more money by selling whole new car... it is not in manufacturers interest to keep those cars running forever.

And there explains the Capitalist system!

[CallTheBall]

All quite sad. Fat cats getting fatter and destroying the planet at the same time.

Best bit is that their latest marketing push (the electric car) makes it sound like they are doing the plant a favour. What a laugh!

[CallTheBall]

Here's another thought.

Rather than make cars more efficient, how about making it so that cars travel less miles per year.

How about making it possible for more people to work from home? Also has the benefit of easing the need to new road infrastructure.

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, CallTheBall said:

Here's another thought.

Rather than make cars more efficient, how about making it so that cars travel less miles per year.

How about making it possible for more people to work from home? Also has the benefit of easing the need to new road infrastructure.

That is cultural change I am battling with in workplace. It is mandatory to work 1 day from home in my company, but I am struggle to stretch any more then that. Some people even get upset when I get my one day WFH. Realistically, in my work I can do 4 days from home and maybe 1 day in the office just to socialise - but that is not socially accepted norm. Equally, if I would work 4 days from home, all the auxiliary positions in cafes, bars, restaurants etc. would be created near my home locally instead of being created in the city center - so by me no travelling to work, 4 less people would have to get up every morning and get to work in central London.

Next thing is 24/7 economy.. that would make both economic and environmental sense. Currently we have 2 peaks during the day and we have to build road capacity to meet those peak times, if we would have proper 24h economy, even 16h we would need to build much less peak capacity into the infrastructure. Good start would be to force all companies with 100+ employees (or offices with 100+ desks) to differentiate hours say instead of 9-5, they should make +/-1 shifts for 8-4, 9-5-10-6 and all companies with 1000+ .. +/-2 shifts starting 7,8,9,10,11AM.... maybe even further companies with 10000+ which is rare +/-3 shifts. So instead of massive jam between 8-9 and 5-6, we would have consistent lower traffic starting from 7AM and ending 8PM.

Combine that with, 50% WFH and commute can be reduced massively. 

[Guest]

For me where I am it's the schools. Rural kids are bussed into schools centrally to have all their ideas, creativity and dreams knocked out of them in the same place.

When it's school holidays there are no holds ups, traffic is reduced by at least 70% at peak times. 

So how would your floating shift idea fit in with parents?

[OldTrout]

Sean,

Not just rural areas. The morning and afternoon traffic decreases hugely in Oxford in school holidays!

John

[Linas.P]

Same in London... School holidays, my drive to work takes 22min, school days drive takes 45-90min. The stretch of A13 westbound usually takes the same +/- few minutes unless there is accident, but majority of traffic is local traffic.. And I understand rural kids "bussing"(assuming there is any benefit attending it... I doubt), but in London most kids live locally ~5-15min walk from school! So basically I can normally get from home to A13 ~4.5miles in 10min during holidays and the same 4.5miles takes 33-78min during school days.

Second thing are HGVs in the city centre.. and I don't mean smaller ones from Tesco... long massive HGVs with concrete mixes, 40 meter long metal beams etc. Surely, deliveries to the construction sites can be arranged outside of peak times aka "2012 Olympics style" (going back to my point of 16-24h economy).

Next annoying thing.. every time somebody gets the scratch or loses the mirror on the road, they will close all roads in vicinity for entire day! I Understand priority is to help injured (sometimes nobody are injured, but let's assume somebody is), quick investigation, clean-up the mess and then reopen the road. That last step is clearly missing in diary and even if not it takes far too long to solve. To be honest they don't even need to close the road in the first place, they can simply close one lane.. everywhere in Europe they only close the lanes which are directly blocked, not entire road and all surrounding roads.

In short, we would do much better by simply using existing roads better, spreading peak times and avoiding unnecessary interference.. talking of which.. speed bumps, narrow gates... what is all that about?! 

[doog442]

19 hours ago, NemesisUK said:

There's millions of unclaimed government grant for the installation of charging infrastructure ... something like only 3 councils have applied ...

I'd rather the Government spent that on improving and subsidising public transport in all areas, including rural areas. This is the real future.

 

[Linas.P]

12 minutes ago, doog442 said:

I'd rather the Government spent that on improving and subsidising public transport in all areas, including rural areas. This is the real future.

....assuming people want to use public transport.. 

Last time I checked actual travel modes used in UK - personal vehicles were first and more journeys were made by car then putting all other categories together.. Never mind we have extreme anti-car culture, extreme anti-car policies, extreme anti-car taxes... they are still preferred by most (62% of trips and 78% of passenger miles). Next one not suprisigly is walking.. because frankly public transport is so disgusting that I would rather walk as well..

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/661933/tsgb-2017-report-summaries.pdf

Now assuming we are living in democratic country (which is definitely not the case) that would mean, goverment has to accommodate what majority wants... and that is driving. It can still be done, we just need to find the ways to reduce negative impacts, by improving infrastructure.

 

[Guest]

....assuming people want to use public transport.. 
 

Won't see me on a loser cruiser ;)

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[FTBBCVoodoo]

18 minutes ago, Comedian said:

 

 

Won't see me on a loser cruiser 😉

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
 

 

 

[Guest]

Lol - now wait for your telling off via PM message :D

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[FTBBCVoodoo]

@Comedian - @tomRCFcarbon started the bloody thread.

I am just trying to expedite it's closure or it's migration to GreenPeace.com or Pistonheads under the Archive heading 😉

[Linas.P]

48 minutes ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

@Comedian - @tomRCFcarbon started the bloody thread.

I am just trying to expedite it's closure or it's migration to GreenPeace.com or Pistonheads under the Archive heading 😉

General discussions would do for me.

I know the people who honestly prefer public transport over personal one, literally quoting the line from one guy in close family - "why do you need cars, when there is public transport... why do I need to 'labour' behind the wheel when I can buy a ticket and sit by a window?!". And again that is fine by me - more people like that as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't mean it is somehow "correct" way and therefore now everyone should be squeezed together like vegetables touching each other's ***** and patiently inhaling all the farts.

I am not sure if the video was directed at me... I have nothing against people using public transport, everyone have their choice... and this is quite key! You cannot simply force people to use public transport, or cycle or do whatever. Well... I guess you can if your name is Joseph or surname is Stalin, or Mao the Chairman... and you currently are running Communist country where no personalities, personolisations, personal space, personal transport or letters in sequence p e r s o n a l are allowed, but that is yet another thread.

[FTBBCVoodoo]

3 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

General discussions would do for me.

I know the people who honestly prefer public transport over personal one, literally quoting the line from one guy in close family - "why do you need cars, when there is public transport... why do I need to 'labour' behind the wheel when I can buy a ticket and sit by a window?!". And again that is fine by me - more people like that as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't mean it is somehow "correct" way and therefore now everyone should be squeezed together like vegetables touching each other's ***** and patiently inhaling all the farts.

I am not sure if the video was directed at me... I have nothing against people using public transport, everyone have their choice... and this is quite key! You cannot simply force people to use public transport, or cycle or do whatever. Well... I guess you can if your name is Joseph or surname is Stalin, or Mao the Chairman... and you currently are running Communist country where no personalities, personolisations, personal space, personal transport or letters in sequence p e r s o n a l are allowed, but that is yet another thread.

Nah, video not directed at anyone.  Just always makes me chuckle thinking of that scene from the In Betweeners when buses are mentioned 🙂

[doog442]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

....assuming people want to use public transport.. 

Last time I checked actual travel modes used in UK - personal vehicles were first and more journeys were made by car then putting all other categories together.. Never mind we have extreme anti-car culture, extreme anti-car policies, extreme anti-car taxes... they are still preferred by most (62% of trips and 78% of passenger miles). Next one not suprisigly is walking.. because frankly public transport is so disgusting that I would rather walk as well..

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/661933/tsgb-2017-report-summaries.pdf

Now assuming we are living in democratic country (which is definitely not the case) that would mean, goverment has to accommodate what majority wants... and that is driving. It can still be done, we just need to find the ways to reduce negative impacts, by improving infrastructure.

 

More people would use public transport if they could. How many more lanes do you want on the M25 😉

I would rather they complete a better and cheaper rail network than new and wider roads. I live in  the SW and the overwhelming majority would rather take a train to London  than drive and then find a place to park but prices stop them...ditto Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. 

As this thread is about electric vehicles add on charging points to the equation.

The country will not build more roads, ask swampy. Public transport is the future.