OV9

So what else have they done locally to reduce pollution ?

Incentivised clean public transport or delivery vehicles ?

Developed green areas ?

I like Bristol, the marine side is great for a day out but this puts me off. Why impact those who have the least in the first place.

Dave!

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:01 am

mik wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:53 am

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:48 am afaik the city diesel bans are more about local air quality than overall climate change targets anyway.

Preciscely. Its a NIMBY.

"But the pollution will just be moved elsewhere"

"Yeah, but they are not Bristol inhabitants / voters. Fuck 'em".

So it’s better for people in cities to breathe toxic gases than for their local government to try and do something about it?

If doing something about it just moves polution to other UK inhabitants, then..... yes.

If they can do something about it without moving polution elsewhere - great.

duncs500 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:45 am Link. What we need is some fusion powered cars.

Fully charged did a nice piece on a fusion reactor, even at the tiny scale they are doing it at the moment its a pretty violent reaction

I look forward to a fusion powered pace maker

mik wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:10 am

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:01 am

mik wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:53 am

Preciscely. Its a NIMBY.

"But the pollution will just be moved elsewhere"

"Yeah, but they are not Bristol inhabitants / voters. Fuck 'em".

So it’s better for people in cities to breathe toxic gases than for their local government to try and do something about it?

If doing something about it just moves polution to other UK inhabitants, then..... yes.

If they can do something about it without moving polution elsewhere - great.

How would this significantly increase pollution in other places?

Decisions made always have effects elsewhere, nothing happens in a vacuum.

V8Granite wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:09 am So what else have they done locally to reduce pollution ?

Incentivised clean public transport or delivery vehicles ?

Developed green areas ?

I like Bristol, the marine side is great for a day out but this puts me off. Why impact those who have the least in the first place.

Dave!

I did say the efforts would be better focussed on public transport and city couriers.

Barry wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:52 am

Beany wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:50 am

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:48 am afaik the city diesel bans are more about local air quality than overall climate change targets anyway.

This.

Yet they allow buses to continue, which is arguably the bigger contributor (more so if they force people out of their TDi and onto buses).

Yeah, but dropping several million on new buses is pricier than banning cars.

This is local govt we're talking about.

Also, the point is to reduce high concentrations of pollution - IE central leeds is a shithole for air quality. Up here in Pudsey, it's generally fine because traffic levels are lower on the whole.

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's not entirely illogical and certainly not indefensible if that's what you're trying to attain.

mik wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:10 am
If doing something about it just moves pollution to other UK inhabitants, then..... yes.

If they can do something about it without moving pollution elsewhere - great.

We use hardly any coal now with more than half our electricity being zero emission, nearly all our fossil powered electricity comes from gas which is about the best of fossil fuels with regard to air quality.

Most EV drivers should move over to a green energy supplier because the rates are so much cheaper (5p/KWh overnight) which would eliminate their air pollution rather than move it.

We are fortunate in the UK in that we have some of the strongest sources of tidal and wind green energy in Europe if not the world. We are about to install the mother of all wind farms off Yorkshire, it surprises me the government does not mention this more.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... hire-coast

and her Maj is looking to cash in for enough energy for another 6m homes

https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 12416.html

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:17 am

V8Granite wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:09 am So what else have they done locally to reduce pollution ?

Incentivised clean public transport or delivery vehicles ?

Developed green areas ?

I like Bristol, the marine side is great for a day out but this puts me off. Why impact those who have the least in the first place.

Dave!

I did say the efforts would be better focussed on public transport and city couriers.

Completely agree, old cars will slowly be replaced naturally and those who use them currently need them. Bob with his 20 year old Passat diesel generally does this as it suits his pocket and his usage.

I think Newcastle had has turbine powered buses first didn’t they ?

Public transport is perfectly set up for full electrification so I’ve always found it crazy that this hasn’t been jumped upon.

Dave!

Mr Pish wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:20 am

mik wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:10 am
If doing something about it just moves pollution to other UK inhabitants, then..... yes.

If they can do something about it without moving pollution elsewhere - great.

We use hardly any coal now with more than half our electricity being zero emission, nearly all our fossil powered electricity comes from gas which is about the best of fossil fuels with regard to air quality.

Most EV drivers should move over to a green energy supplier because the rates are so much cheaper (5p/KWh overnight) which would eliminate their air pollution rather than move it.

We are fortunate in the UK in that we have some of the strongest sources of tidal and wind green energy in Europe if not the world. We are about to install the mother of all wind farms off Yorkshire, it surprises me the government does not mention this more.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... hire-coast

The huge CO2 impact of these initially is so much greater than Nuclear. I don’t see the extra benefit over nuclear but we are expecting a good few customer jobs from them as the build ships have our engines in them so I shouldn’t complain.

Dave!

Beany wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:18 am

Barry wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:52 am

Beany wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:50 am

This.

Yet they allow buses to continue, which is arguably the bigger contributor (more so if they force people out of their TDi and onto buses).

Yeah, but dropping several million on new buses is pricier than banning cars.

This is local govt we're talking about.

Also, the point is to reduce high concentrations of pollution - IE central leeds is a shithole for air quality. Up here in Pudsey, it's generally fine because traffic levels are lower on the whole.

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's not entirely illogical and certainly not indefensible if that's what you're trying to attain.

Removing ANY source of pollution is a good thing per se, but again, buses are older and dirtier, and spend all their time in town. As for the cost argument it shows typical lack of wider thinking IMO. Yes forcing bus companies to invest in cleaner vehicles is costly but hurting the consumer directly will affect the city directly eventually anyway, they'll go somewhere else, buy online, think twice about going out for meals etc. The real costs need to be considered, not just the immediate ones (ie clean buses cost money). Local Gov are the last people I'd trust to give that any thought of course, as they only care about their short lived spell in Town Hall, rather than the long term..

V8Granite wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:21 am

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:17 am

V8Granite wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:09 am So what else have they done locally to reduce pollution ?

Incentivised clean public transport or delivery vehicles ?

Developed green areas ?

I like Bristol, the marine side is great for a day out but this puts me off. Why impact those who have the least in the first place.

Dave!

I did say the efforts would be better focussed on public transport and city couriers.

Completely agree, old cars will slowly be replaced naturally and those who use them currently need them. Bob with his 20 year old Passat diesel generally does this as it suits his pocket and his usage.

I think Newcastle had has turbine powered buses first didn’t they ?

Public transport is perfectly set up for full electrification so I’ve always found it crazy that this hasn’t been jumped upon.

Dave!

Same reason why we still use any old tech, nobody wants to spend the money until they’re forced to.

We’ve been hearing people say we should be investing in moving away from fossil fuels for at least 50 years and it’s only been token measures until very recently.

V8Granite wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:25 am
The huge CO2 impact of these initially is so much greater than Nuclear. I don’t see the extra benefit over nuclear but we are expecting a good few customer jobs from them as the build ships have our engines in them so I shouldn’t complain.

Dave!

The problem is there are so many different sources of information, some of it with political or commercial bias behind it. From what I can see the construction CO2 cost is comparable but the cost of energy generation is almost double for nuclear. However from a strategic perspective to keep grid balance in the event of fluctuations in green power generation a 25-35% base of nuclear would seam sensible from a laypersons perspective.

Mr Pish wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:20 am
We use hardly any coal now with more than half our electricity being zero emission

Bollocks.

CCGT is currently supplying more than 50% of our demand, at this second, and producing c11Kt/hr of CO2. Solar and wind comprises just 16% of supply

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:33 am
Same reason why we still use any old tech, nobody wants to spend the money until they’re forced to.

We’ve been hearing people say we should be investing in moving away from fossil fuels for at least 50 years and it’s only been token measures until very recently.

apart from tech nurds

this is an interesting interactive site that shows the transformation of the uk grid over the last 10 years with a 60% reduction in CO2

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/how ... ly-decade/

Swervin_Mervin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:49 am
CCGT is currently supplying more than 50% of our demand, at this second, and producing c11Kt/hr of CO2. Solar and wind comprises just 16% of supply

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... first-time

Swervin_Mervin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:49 am

Mr Pish wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:20 am
We use hardly any coal now with more than half our electricity being zero emission

Bollocks.

CCGT is currently supplying more than 50% of our demand, at this second, and producing c11Kt/hr of CO2. Solar and wind comprises just 16% of supply

Talking coal specifically, that's now very low, but gas is still the majority provider for sure. We've had zero coal periods this year though so the swing is improving year on year. The current issue is relying on renewables isn't reliable so we need the back up gas and nuclear provide.

Didn't we have one day this year when no fossil fuels were used to generate electricity in the uk? Or many be it was just coal free?

Back in the summer anyway, when there was lots of sun, not many people using lights or heating or hot drinks etc...

Mr Pish wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:57 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:49 am
CCGT is currently supplying more than 50% of our demand, at this second, and producing c11Kt/hr of CO2. Solar and wind comprises just 16% of supply

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... first-time

And? If you're referring to the "57% of electricity generation was low carbon over the period, produced either by renewables or nuclear power stations" then I've got news for you - low carbon does not mean zero emissions

There's lots of trumpeting of the reduction in coal-fired generation, but again, it hides the full picture. Coal-fired stations have gradually been switching to burning "renewables" but in the majority of instances those renewables actually comprise pelletised wood shipped from various parts of the world, Canada being a big exporter. And it turns out that burning wood pellets produced on an industrial scale isn't actually that great

[mention]integrale_evo[/mention] Dont think so - in the 80's (%) seems to be celebrated.

Interesting chart
https://infogram.com/british-electricit ... kdpjd?live

Swervin_Mervin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:17 pm
And? If you're referring to the "57% of electricity generation was low carbon over the period, produced either by renewables or nuclear power stations" then I've got news for you - low carbon does not mean zero emissions

There's lots of trumpeting of the reduction in coal-fired generation, but again, it hides the full picture. Coal-fired stations have gradually been switching to burning "renewables" but in the majority of instances those renewables actually comprise pelletised wood shipped from various parts of the world, Canada being a big exporter. And it turns out that burning wood pellets produced on an industrial scale isn't actually that great

thanks that is very interesting, i will read that later