Climate Change Thread

[Torquemada 1420]

You're hilarious.

Go on, you were banging on about it, how will it address climate change?

Thought I was quite clear on this. It's already all over.

If the posters here were even vaguely representative of the population as a whole, I might.... just might have some hope for some form of salvation. But anything now is p*ss*ng in the wind. Worse, I suspect it's all window dressing just to appease the masses whilst it remains business as usual. In both senses.

[JM2K6]

There is a fuckload of stuff we can do with regards to how we develop and maintain land for living and for farming & other enterprises that does not boil down to "everyone living in teepees in Wales". I'm talking about realistic proposals that have already been trialled on a smaller scale, but with little commercial benefit / appetite behind it so is unlikely to happen. To give just one example, even the somewhat controversial shift away from fossil fuels is one of these methods - is that impossible naivety?

And talking of naive, you're asking for a) a large reduction in population (how? You gonna shoot them yourself?) and b) essentially going against one of the core biological impulses of the human species. Meanwhile, there's a fair amount of evidence suggesting this is something that'll naturally slow and limit itself, and isn't the core problem. But you're convinced it is, so...

No. There isn't. Again: what is theoretically possible and what will happen are poles apart with capitalism's greed being the primary driver. And you've acknowledged that in red above. Your proposals are not realistic.

I wasn't suggesting a large reduction in population was ever going to happen voluntarily but a war might help! Neutron bombs anyone? Oh. I forgot. A bomb that kills people but doesn't destroy property is immoral

BTW, the whole change for good argument goes against TWO core biological impulses of the human species: screwing and accumulation through greed at anyone and everyone else's/thing's expense. Good luck changing either of those through reasoned debate.

Greed isn't a core biological impulse in the same way. We're hard-wired to fuck, not hard-wired to fuck each other over, we're actually pretty social animals.

In terms of capitalist greed, well, it can be altered with the right pressures, which are a) events directly impacting revenue streams (e.g. if climate change directly makes things more expensive / unfeasible with the current approach), and b) consumer action. Technically also c) government action, but I'm lumping them in with the corps to be honest. Again, electric cars are a good example of this - it's a potential new revenue stream that has a potentially longer shelf life than petrol cars and a lot of consumer backing, even if it's far from a perfect solution. That's how these things can change; it just needs to be clearer and louder and more urgent what else needs to change, for example in terms of power generation or how we build new houses with the environment in mind or how we treat our urban and semi-urban spaces, etc.

[Torquemada 1420]

Greed isn't a core biological impulse in the same way. We're hard-wired to fuck, not hard-wired to fuck each other over, we're actually pretty social animals.

In terms of capitalist greed, well, it can be altered with the right pressures, which are a) events directly impacting revenue streams (e.g. if climate change directly makes things more expensive / unfeasible with the current approach), and b) consumer action. Technically also c) government action, but I'm lumping them in with the corps to be honest. Again, electric cars are a good example of this - it's a potential new revenue stream that has a potentially longer shelf life than petrol cars and a lot of consumer backing, even if it's far from a perfect solution. That's how these things can change; it just needs to be clearer and louder and more urgent what else needs to change, for example in terms of power generation or how we build new houses with the environment in mind or how we treat our urban and semi-urban spaces, etc.

I'm not convinced by either.

Survival is a core biological function. Our evolution and consequential alterations to our natural surroundings means that imperative does not have the same environment upon which to focus but it's still there. Keep up with the Jones and wars all over the planet might be the current manifestations of that drive.

The very people who can exert the right pressures are those with the largest vested interests in the status quo?

As an aside, I'm not convinced by electric cars either. At least not in their present format. Much effort seems to be being directed in ignoring other data/costs incumbent with the technology
- most obviously the source and cost of the generating the electricity in the first place
- the cost of putting in the infrastructure needed to support charging on any meaningful scale. Can't see Grenfell designers running 300m extension leads from the top floors of their next construction.
- cost of disposal of end of life Li-Ion batteries.
- it might be p*ssing in the wind again with cars when you look at shipping, trucking, public transport and air travel

I get that the tech will improve and maybe it's necessary to fudge the numbers in order to get the momentum needed for adoption in the name of the longer term good.

[Raggs]

It's a promising technology but still in relative infancy, the carbon capture for exhaust stack is relatively mature.

You could imagine just setting up banks of these in relatively unproductive land and powering through solar/wind and just leaving them to it, so it's an attractive idea, although I'm not that informed about any specific fuels, catalyst or other 'ingredients' that might be required.

I'd be interested to see where the air scrubbing ultimately ends up, the engineer in me has a few doubts about ability to scale, not least as it's trying to extract relatively low concentrations of C02 (atmospheric is around 0.04% by volume) in a massive, massive catchment compared to combustion exhaust streams of around 12-14%, fuel depending, held in a single gas flow.

As you point out, the benefit is clear - it doesn't strictly depend upon goodwill of various nations and we can continue to run them once the main carbon emitters are defunct, so we're not just stopping CO2 production but actively reducing what we've already belched out there. Fingers crossed, and fingers crossed not too late.

We should also really be looking at gases like methane as well, aside from livestock farms capturing methane emissions and burning to generate power I'm well behind the curve on what we're doing about that.

If I recall correctly, methane, despite being vastly more warming, also breaks down faster. It's devastating if a large amount is released. It's also similar to CO2, in the sense that there's always methane going around in the cycle, the problem is adding more of it from fossil fuel sources.

Using methane from farms is better than just letting it float away into the atmosphere as methane (I believe), but it's still fossil fuel sources that is leading to basically carbon that's been locked away for millions of years, to being back in the cycle.

CO2 scrubbing tech (not just on exhausts), and fusion reactors, could well be the technological solution. One to clean up the air, and the other to help keep us from adding more back into it.

Shame that it's looking like they both may be arriving close to too late. If the permafrost melts, we're all buggered and that's it.

[Biffer]

You're hilarious.

Go on, you were banging on about it, how will it address climate change?

Thought I was quite clear on this. It's already all over.

If the posters here were even vaguely representative of the population as a whole, I might.... just might have some hope for some form of salvation. But anything now is p*ss*ng in the wind. Worse, I suspect it's all window dressing just to appease the masses whilst it remains business as usual. In both senses.

Can’t back it up. As expected.

[GogLais]

Greed isn't a core biological impulse in the same way. We're hard-wired to fuck, not hard-wired to fuck each other over, we're actually pretty social animals.

In terms of capitalist greed, well, it can be altered with the right pressures, which are a) events directly impacting revenue streams (e.g. if climate change directly makes things more expensive / unfeasible with the current approach), and b) consumer action. Technically also c) government action, but I'm lumping them in with the corps to be honest. Again, electric cars are a good example of this - it's a potential new revenue stream that has a potentially longer shelf life than petrol cars and a lot of consumer backing, even if it's far from a perfect solution. That's how these things can change; it just needs to be clearer and louder and more urgent what else needs to change, for example in terms of power generation or how we build new houses with the environment in mind or how we treat our urban and semi-urban spaces, etc.

I'm not convinced by either.

Survival is a core biological function. Our evolution and consequential alterations to our natural surroundings means that imperative does not have the same environment upon which to focus but it's still there. Keep up with the Jones and wars all over the planet might be the current manifestations of that drive.

The very people who can exert the right pressures are those with the largest vested interests in the status quo?

As an aside, I'm not convinced by electric cars either. At least not in their present format. Much effort seems to be being directed in ignoring other data/costs incumbent with the technology
- most obviously the source and cost of the generating the electricity in the first place
- the cost of putting in the infrastructure needed to support charging on any meaningful scale. Can't see Grenfell designers running 300m extension leads from the top floors of their next construction.
- cost of disposal of end of life Li-Ion batteries.
- it might be p*ssing in the wind again with cars when you look at shipping, trucking, public transport and air travel

I get that the tech will improve and maybe it's necessary to fudge the numbers in order to get the momentum needed for adoption in the name of the longer term good.

Just watched a documentary by Guy Martin about EVs. He hired a Hyundai Ioniq (6 maybe), which has an advertised range of something over 250 miles and he decided to drive to John o' Groats and back with it. He did it but with a great deal of hassle. Five out of ten charging points weren't working properly, some charged far slower than they should have and one ultra-fast one charged 70p/kWh. Astonishingly it cost him just over £200 in electricity compared with an estimated £140 using diesel. I suppose that for the sake of the world I should go electric and accept the compromises and restrictions but it's like Saint Augustine - make me chaste but not yet.

[Raggs]

I know I'm constantly needing to drive to John O'Groats...

The network in the UK is still improving, and has a way to go. It's also not yet cheap as chips because it's relatively new.

However, how many people need to drive 100+ miles daily? How many do more than 50? One trip a year your electric car may not be the better option, but all the rest of the time it's cheaper and more convenient.

[GogLais]

I know I'm constantly needing to drive to John O'Groats...

The network in the UK is still improving, and has a way to go. It's also not yet cheap as chips because it's relatively new.

However, how many people need to drive 100+ miles daily? How many do more than 50? One trip a year your electric car may not be the better option, but all the rest of the time it's cheaper and more convenient.

The J o’G trip was a bit of a stunt of course but it doesn’t do away with the point about faulty chargers and high charges. I accept that an EV would be fine for the vast majority of trips I do but problematic if I want to drive into the wilds of Wales for a day unless I pay a lot of money for a Tesla. I guess the ideal answer is that I should forego my long day trips.

[fishfoodie]

I know I'm constantly needing to drive to John O'Groats...

The network in the UK is still improving, and has a way to go. It's also not yet cheap as chips because it's relatively new.

However, how many people need to drive 100+ miles daily? How many do more than 50? One trip a year your electric car may not be the better option, but all the rest of the time it's cheaper and more convenient.

The J o’G trip was a bit of a stunt of course but it doesn’t do away with the point about faulty chargers and high charges. I accept that an EV would be fine for the vast majority of trips I do but problematic if I want to drive into the wilds of Wales for a day unless I pay a lot of money for a Tesla. I guess the ideal answer is that I should forego my long day trips.

I think the bigger problem is the "cities"; not the "wilds".

Pick a location in London; & count the number of cars, & then the number of charging locations. The lack of charging infrastructure is the killer of rollout, in the most favorable location for EVs; the cities; especially cities like London, where people park their cars on street overnight.

The good news is that battery technology is evolving; & in two, or three years time, distances between charges will improve significantly.

[Stranger]

I remember the switch to lead free, at the time there were lots of concerns about the lack of infrastructure - not all garages had lead free pumps (a quick google search says 11% of UK petrol stations in 1988).

[Torquemada 1420]

I know I'm constantly needing to drive to John O'Groats...

The network in the UK is still improving, and has a way to go. It's also not yet cheap as chips because it's relatively new.

However, how many people need to drive 100+ miles daily? How many do more than 50? One trip a year your electric car may not be the better option, but all the rest of the time it's cheaper and more convenient.

See my post above. I very much doubt it's more convenient ever. And not convinced it's cheaper at all (at the moment) when you factor in all costs.

Interested to see how hydrogen progresses.

[Torquemada 1420]

I remember the switch to lead free, at the time there were lots of concerns about the lack of infrastructure - not all garages had lead free pumps (a quick google search says 11% of UK petrol stations in 1988).

Yeah. Because that's entirely comparable. When pumps already existed and many catered for 3 fuel types anyway: diesel, standard and high octane....... so all they had to do was dump the unleaded on to the high octane pumps.

[inactionman]

I know I'm constantly needing to drive to John O'Groats...

The network in the UK is still improving, and has a way to go. It's also not yet cheap as chips because it's relatively new.

However, how many people need to drive 100+ miles daily? How many do more than 50? One trip a year your electric car may not be the better option, but all the rest of the time it's cheaper and more convenient.

See my post above. I very much doubt it's more convenient ever. And not convinced it's cheaper at all (at the moment) when you factor in all costs.

Interested to see how hydrogen progresses.

A number of car manufacturers have retained interest in Fuel Cells, it would be good to have a number and variety of options - suspect some will better fit certain use cases than others.

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

[JM2K6]

Hands up everyone who's surprised the troll from the rugby pod is like this

[Torquemada 1420]

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

Fair point.

Mind you, being involved in a pile up in an Tesla where the plates in the Li-Ion cells get mashed together is quite interesting and if you get a fire, good luck getting
the fire brigade coming anywhere near you. Water and 30+ Amps not good bedfellows.

[inactionman]

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

Fair point.

Mind you, being involved in a pile up in an Tesla where the plates in the Li-Ion cells get mashed together is quite interesting and if you get a fire, good luck getting
the fire brigade coming anywhere near you. Water and 30+ Amps not good bedfellows.

I read a paper many years back looking at the ease of converting bits of the national gas grid into hydrogen so we could phase out natural gas home boilers etc - from memory the biggest problem was the seals, as the smaller hydrogen atom would more easily leak. I think they were looking at combining hydrogen chemically with something else, to mitigate both explosive nature and ease of leaking, but I've no idea what that was or where it got to.

I'm not clear what would happen if a cell in e.g. a Tesla broke, in older batteries with liquid electrolyte the loss of electrolyte would generally mean the loss of electrical potential, at the cost of usually pretty nasty acid all over the show, but I think Li-Ion and Li-PO are based on gel or ploymer (clue in name) electrolyte which might not actually leak. Not sure.

Lithium and water aren't great bedfellows either, come to think of it, unless you're planning on an early Guy Fawkes night.

[Openside]

What is defined as meat? All flesh or only that from certain species?

You are not suggesting we start eating each other are you?

It would help with the over population though...

[Torquemada 1420]

What is defined as meat? All flesh or only that from certain species?

You are not suggesting we start eating each other are you?

It would help with the over population though...

With the amount of lard arses around these days, we'd have an inexhaustible supply.

[Slick]

A key part of Boris Johnson’s plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions could be worse for the climate than continuing to burn gas, a study says.

The prime minister will support “blue hydrogen”, which is made from natural gas with the carbon captured and stored, in a hydrogen strategy due to be published within days. The strategy will also back “green hydrogen”, which is made from water using electrolysis powered by renewable energy.

The gas industry says blue hydrogen will be low carbon because the emissions produced when the fuel is made will be piped under the North and Irish Seas and injected into saline aquifers and depleted oilfields and gasfields.

Hydrogen can fuel boilers, lorries, buses, trains and industrial processes but does not exist as a fuel in nature, so it has to be manufactured. It produces no carbon when burnt but its carbon footprint depends on the emissions involved in the manufacturing.

Shell, BP and other oil and gas companies are hoping the promise of making blue hydrogen will allow them to continue exploiting their gas reserves while claiming they are on course to eliminate their emissions in line with the government’s 2050 net-zero target. But research by Cornell and Stanford universities in the US found that more methane, a potent greenhouse gas, would escape into the atmosphere during production of blue hydrogen than from burning gas for heat. This is because blue hydrogen plants would burn more gas to convert methane to hydrogen and capture the carbon.

The study, in the journal Energy Science & Engineering, concludes: “The greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen is more than 20 per cent greater than burning natural gas or coal for heat. The use of blue hydrogen appears difficult to justify on climate grounds.”

The study found that emissions from blue hydrogen could be reduced if renewable energy was used to make it and capture the carbon. While this would make it greener than burning natural gas for heat, it would still not be zero carbon because of methane leaks.

Robert Howarth, co-author of the study and professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell, said: “Politicians round the world ... are placing expensive bets on blue hydrogen as a leading solution in the energy transition. Our research is ... a warning signal to governments that the only ‘clean’ hydrogen they should invest public funds in is truly net-zero green hydrogen made from wind and solar energy.”

A government spokesman said: “Low-carbon hydrogen will be essential ... to eliminating the UK’s contribution to climate change by 2050, with more details to be set out in our forthcoming hydrogen strategy.

“Independent reports, including that from the Climate Change Committee, show a combination of blue and green hydrogen is consistent with reaching net zero.”

[GogLais]

I know I'm constantly needing to drive to John O'Groats...

The network in the UK is still improving, and has a way to go. It's also not yet cheap as chips because it's relatively new.

However, how many people need to drive 100+ miles daily? How many do more than 50? One trip a year your electric car may not be the better option, but all the rest of the time it's cheaper and more convenient.

The J o’G trip was a bit of a stunt of course but it doesn’t do away with the point about faulty chargers and high charges. I accept that an EV would be fine for the vast majority of trips I do but problematic if I want to drive into the wilds of Wales for a day unless I pay a lot of money for a Tesla. I guess the ideal answer is that I should forego my long day trips.

I think the bigger problem is the "cities"; not the "wilds".

Pick a location in London; & count the number of cars, & then the number of charging locations. The lack of charging infrastructure is the killer of rollout, in the most favorable location for EVs; the cities; especially cities like London, where people park their cars on street overnight.

The good news is that battery technology is evolving; & in two, or three years time, distances between charges will improve significantly.

I’m sure you’re right. There was something in the press recently about the problem in I think Oxford with people trailing charging leads across the pavement. The suggested answer was for each household to have a charging point at the kerbside but if somebody’s taken up that space you’re buggered anyway. I’m sure ranges will increase but that doesn’t do away with the problem of getting electricity to your vehicle even if it’s less frequent.

The whole changeover thing is going to be interesting. Will there come a cliff edge where oil companies and filling stations all decide it isn’t worth it any more leaving a lot of people with IC cars that are unusable?

[inactionman]

The J o’G trip was a bit of a stunt of course but it doesn’t do away with the point about faulty chargers and high charges. I accept that an EV would be fine for the vast majority of trips I do but problematic if I want to drive into the wilds of Wales for a day unless I pay a lot of money for a Tesla. I guess the ideal answer is that I should forego my long day trips.

I think the bigger problem is the "cities"; not the "wilds".

Pick a location in London; & count the number of cars, & then the number of charging locations. The lack of charging infrastructure is the killer of rollout, in the most favorable location for EVs; the cities; especially cities like London, where people park their cars on street overnight.

The good news is that battery technology is evolving; & in two, or three years time, distances between charges will improve significantly.

I’m sure you’re right. There was something in the press recently about the problem in I think Oxford with people trailing charging leads across the pavement. The suggested answer was for each household to have a charging point at the kerbside but if somebody’s taken up that space you’re buggered anyway. I’m sure ranges will increase but that doesn’t do away with the problem of getting electricity to your vehicle even if it’s less frequent.

The whole changeover thing is going to be interesting. Will there come a cliff edge where oil companies and filling stations all decide it isn’t worth it any more leaving a lot of people with IC cars that are unusable?

There was talk of running spurs from the electric street light pylons, as with LED lighting they're mostly over-engineered for the load they carry. Of course, they're still quite widely spaced, but would at least increase options. Would also allow a different tariff to household - although would require some additional form of subscription and metering - if we want to incentivise EVs.

[Torquemada 1420]

I’m sure you’re right. There was something in the press recently about the problem in I think Oxford with people trailing charging leads across the pavement. The suggested answer was for each household to have a charging point at the kerbside but if somebody’s taken up that space you’re buggered anyway.

Quite. Since the public highway is public (clue there Boris) and charging is not going to be free, I'm pretty sure the Booths won't want the Reynolds hooking their Beemer up to their charger.

[robmatic]

I know I'm constantly needing to drive to John O'Groats...

The network in the UK is still improving, and has a way to go. It's also not yet cheap as chips because it's relatively new.

However, how many people need to drive 100+ miles daily? How many do more than 50? One trip a year your electric car may not be the better option, but all the rest of the time it's cheaper and more convenient.

See my post above. I very much doubt it's more convenient ever. And not convinced it's cheaper at all (at the moment) when you factor in all costs.

Interested to see how hydrogen progresses.

A number of car manufacturers have retained interest in Fuel Cells, it would be good to have a number and variety of options - suspect some will better fit certain use cases than others.

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

You also have to bear in mind that hydrogen isn't really a fuel and you need some form of energy input to actually produce the hydrogen before you even get to the practicalities of storing and transporting it.

[inactionman]

See my post above. I very much doubt it's more convenient ever. And not convinced it's cheaper at all (at the moment) when you factor in all costs.

Interested to see how hydrogen progresses.

A number of car manufacturers have retained interest in Fuel Cells, it would be good to have a number and variety of options - suspect some will better fit certain use cases than others.

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

You also have to bear in mind that hydrogen isn't really a fuel and you need some form of energy input to actually produce the hydrogen before you even get to the practicalities of storing and transporting it.

It is a fuel in the literal sense of the word, but you're right that we'd be looking to create it unlike fossil fuels which we just extract.

This is arguably its greatest benefit - we can use hydrogen essentially as a battery, to convert energy from renewable sources into a substance we can store (although this is more tricky than for the relatively inert fossil fuels we use now) and utilise at our convenience. We can burn it for heat, we can use electrolysis for electricity. All we end up with is water.

[Hal Jordan]

There's been pretty much universal astonishment in the EV community at that Guy Martin programme. People are scratching their heads to try and work out just how badly he drove the car to need to recharge it as much as he did (Hyundai and Kia are efficiency kings with their EVs) and the cost. Also, his fucking cretinous closing statement, "Oh, they're only any good if you want to go under 50 miles." 2011 called, it wants it's arguments back.

It appears they deliberately only used the highest cost chargers from Ionity, probably thinking that they could charge their car faster, but at 70p/kWh. Gridserve public chargersare far more affordable at 30p/kWh.

But, it's a TV show, no problems = boring = no viewers = no revenue.

My take on owning an EV would be

Mostly do short trips - EV is great
Mostly do short trips and occasional long ones (eg holiday) - small inconvenience/bit of planning required but still EV works well
Mostly do regular long trips along known routes - you’ll quickly adapt to where chargers are and accommodate in your routine, the high mileage you’re doing means significant fuel cost savings. potentially you’re a business driver so BIK advantages too.
Drive Lands End to John O'Groats and get called out to granny who has fallen over at home and lives 600 miles away at a moments notice - maybe get a PHEV

As for hydrogen fuel cell cars, if you piss your pants about the Grid falling over due to everyone plugging in an EV tomorrow, you might want to look into the energy required for even green hydrogen, never mind the stuff produced by fossil fuels (pretty much all of it). The Tories have followed the donors as usual when backing that horse.

[inactionman]

There's been pretty much universal astonishment in the EV community at that Guy Martin programme. People are scratching their heads to try and work out just how badly he drove the car to need to recharge it as much as he did (Hyundai and Kia are efficiency kings with their EVs) and the cost. Also, his fucking cretinous closing statement, "Oh, they're only any good if you want to go under 50 miles." 2011 called, it wants it's arguments back.

It appears they deliberately only used the highest cost chargers from Ionity, probably thinking that they could charge their car faster, but at 70p/kWh. Gridserve public chargersare far more affordable at 30p/kWh.

But, it's a TV show, no problems = boring = no viewers = no revenue.

My take on owning an EV would be

Mostly do short trips - EV is great
Mostly do short trips and occasional long ones (eg holiday) - small inconvenience/bit of planning required but still EV works well
Mostly do regular long trips along known routes - you’ll quickly adapt to where chargers are and accommodate in your routine, the high mileage you’re doing means significant fuel cost savings. potentially you’re a business driver so BIK advantages too.
Drive Lands End to John O'Groats and get called out to granny who has fallen over at home and lives 600 miles away at a moments notice - maybe get a PHEV

As for hydrogen fuel cell cars, if you piss your pants about the Grid falling over due to everyone plugging in an EV tomorrow, you might want to look into the energy required for even green hydrogen, never mind the stuff produced by fossil fuels (pretty much all of it). The Tories have followed the donors as usual when backing that horse.

I vaguely recall Clarkson testing a Prius against some sales rep shed, which he of course did over longhaul driving and against a diesel, so utterly unrepresentative and really not helpful. But some people like Clarkson.

[Brazil]

There's been pretty much universal astonishment in the EV community at that Guy Martin programme. People are scratching their heads to try and work out just how badly he drove the car to need to recharge it as much as he did (Hyundai and Kia are efficiency kings with their EVs) and the cost. Also, his fucking cretinous closing statement, "Oh, they're only any good if you want to go under 50 miles." 2011 called, it wants it's arguments back.

It appears they deliberately only used the highest cost chargers from Ionity, probably thinking that they could charge their car faster, but at 70p/kWh. Gridserve public chargersare far more affordable at 30p/kWh.

But, it's a TV show, no problems = boring = no viewers = no revenue.

My take on owning an EV would be

Mostly do short trips - EV is great
Mostly do short trips and occasional long ones (eg holiday) - small inconvenience/bit of planning required but still EV works well
Mostly do regular long trips along known routes - you’ll quickly adapt to where chargers are and accommodate in your routine, the high mileage you’re doing means significant fuel cost savings. potentially you’re a business driver so BIK advantages too.
Drive Lands End to John O'Groats and get called out to granny who has fallen over at home and lives 600 miles away at a moments notice - maybe get a PHEV

As for hydrogen fuel cell cars, if you piss your pants about the Grid falling over due to everyone plugging in an EV tomorrow, you might want to look into the energy required for even green hydrogen, never mind the stuff produced by fossil fuels (pretty much all of it). The Tories have followed the donors as usual when backing that horse.

I know hydrogen is produced from brown coal, but can't it also be produced from seawater by electrolysis?

It still surprises me that there hasn't been a Manhattan Project equivalent for fusion, as it would solve all our energy problems until the earth disappears into the sun.

[robmatic]

A number of car manufacturers have retained interest in Fuel Cells, it would be good to have a number and variety of options - suspect some will better fit certain use cases than others.

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

You also have to bear in mind that hydrogen isn't really a fuel and you need some form of energy input to actually produce the hydrogen before you even get to the practicalities of storing and transporting it.

It is a fuel in the literal sense of the word, but you're right that we'd be looking to create it unlike fossil fuels which we just extract.

This is arguably its greatest benefit - we can use hydrogen essentially as a battery, to convert energy from renewable sources into a substance we can store (although this is more tricky than for the relatively inert fossil fuels we use now) and utilise at our convenience. We can burn it for heat, we can use electrolysis for electricity. All we end up with is water.

My brother is a research scientist and has done some work that involves producing hydrogen biologically, which is interesting, but a long way from commercial use. But yes, potentially useful for making use of excess energy from renewable sources.

[Torquemada 1420]

It still surprises me that there hasn't been a Manhattan Project equivalent for fusion, as it would solve all our energy problems until the earth disappears into the sun.

There is. They called it the Massachusetts Project........

[ScarfaceClaw]

It’s ok. Kerry Katona has stepped in and brought up the elephant in the room. People pissing in the sea while on holiday. Cut that out and we’ve got this climate thing sorted.

[GogLais]

It’s ok. Kerry Katona has stepped in and brought up the elephant in the room. People pissing in the sea while on holiday. Cut that out and we’ve got this climate thing sorted.

I’ve always assumed it’s ok as long as you’re in up to your waist.

[ScarfaceClaw]

It’s ok. Kerry Katona has stepped in and brought up the elephant in the room. People pissing in the sea while on holiday. Cut that out and we’ve got this climate thing sorted.

I’ve always assumed it’s ok as long as you’re in up to your waist.

The way she was going on you’d think some lad on holiday lobbed his mickey out and went for a piss standing on the beach at the water line.

[Raggs]

It’s ok. Kerry Katona has stepped in and brought up the elephant in the room. People pissing in the sea while on holiday. Cut that out and we’ve got this climate thing sorted.

I’ve always assumed it’s ok as long as you’re in up to your waist.

The way she was going on you’d think some lad on holiday lobbed his mickey out and went for a piss standing on the beach at the water line.

Everybody pees in the pool, not everyone does it from the diving board.

[tabascoboy]

Weather models indicating a possible glacial 'supermelt' after the 16th August as exceptionally warm air floods out of Canada and across Greenland.

This follows from a previous major loss of ice only last month, Greenland lost a massive amount of ice with enough melting to cover the U.S. state of Florida in 2 inches (5.1 centimeters) of water, scientists said.

It was the third-biggest ice loss for Greenland in a single day since 1950. The other two records, also within the last decade, happened in 2012 and 2019. Some 22 gigatonnes of ice melted — with 12 gigatonnes flowing to the ocean and 10 gigatonnes absorbed by the snowpack where it can refreeze, said Xavier Fettweis, a climate scientist at the University of Liege in Belgium.

We don't tend to hear so much about Arctic Russia, but surges of unusually warm air masses into the tundra zones seem to be becoming more common too.

[Calculon]

I know I'm constantly needing to drive to John O'Groats...

The network in the UK is still improving, and has a way to go. It's also not yet cheap as chips because it's relatively new.

However, how many people need to drive 100+ miles daily? How many do more than 50? One trip a year your electric car may not be the better option, but all the rest of the time it's cheaper and more convenient.

See my post above. I very much doubt it's more convenient ever. And not convinced it's cheaper at all (at the moment) when you factor in all costs.

Interested to see how hydrogen progresses.

A number of car manufacturers have retained interest in Fuel Cells, it would be good to have a number and variety of options - suspect some will better fit certain use cases than others.

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

The idea of replacing all ice cars with slightly crappier, but more expensive electric versions seem a bit shit really. Hopefully our need and desire for cars will be drastically reduced in the future.

[fishfoodie]

I know hydrogen is produced from brown coal, but can't it also be produced from seawater by electrolysis?

Yep, dead easy to create Hydrogen from water; but the problem is that (a) H2O is a very strong bond, & so requires a decent amount of energy to break; & so (b) you're using electrical energy, to create potential fuel energy, & losing energy along the way...

so why not just use the electrical energy first of all ?

It still surprises me that there hasn't been a Manhattan Project equivalent for fusion, as it would solve all our energy problems until the earth disappears into the sun.

It's called nuclear fusion, & has been just around the corner for the last fifty years...

If there was a single reason I hate pseudo-environmentalists; it is their dogmatic refusal to support any technology that includes the word, "Nuclear", in the title.

One of the former founders of Greenpeace has turned around to admitting that Nuclear is core to moving to low carbon energy generation FFS !!

[Raggs]

I know hydrogen is produced from brown coal, but can't it also be produced from seawater by electrolysis?

Yep, dead easy to create Hydrogen from water; but the problem is that (a) H2O is a very strong bond, & so requires a decent amount of energy to break; & so (b) you're using electrical energy, to create potential fuel energy, & losing energy along the way...

so why not just use the electrical energy first of all ?

It still surprises me that there hasn't been a Manhattan Project equivalent for fusion, as it would solve all our energy problems until the earth disappears into the sun.

It's called nuclear fusion, & has been just around the corner for the last fifty years...

If there was a single reason I hate pseudo-environmentalists; it is their dogmatic refusal to support any technology that includes the word, "Nuclear", in the title.

One of the former founders of Greenpeace has turned around to admitting that Nuclear is core to moving to low carbon energy generation FFS !!

The frenzy about nuclear (fission even) being bad has probably set countries back a long way from reaching targets. People point to Fukushima, but that was an ancient design, old, getting hit by never imagined forces, and it still wasn't a complete disaster.

[Biffer]

If you want to look a nuclear power that will actually work, have a look at thorium reactors. Much more likely to provide a workable nuclear reactor in the near term than fusion, with waste products that will cease to be radioactive on human timescales.

[Raggs]

If you want to look a nuclear power that will actually work, have a look at thorium reactors. Much more likely to provide a workable nuclear reactor in the near term than fusion, with waste products that will cease to be radioactive on human timescales.

There's plenty of decent fission reactor ideas out there. And we should absolutely be using them whilst fusion is still on the roadmap. As I said earlier, fusion looks like it's going to arrive too late at the moment.

[Sandstorm]

A key part of Boris Johnson’s plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions could be worse for the climate than continuing to burn gas, a study says.

The prime minister will support “blue hydrogen”, which is made from natural gas with the carbon captured and stored, in a hydrogen strategy due to be published within days. The strategy will also back “green hydrogen”, which is made from water using electrolysis powered by renewable energy.

The gas industry says blue hydrogen will be low carbon because the emissions produced when the fuel is made will be piped under the North and Irish Seas and injected into saline aquifers and depleted oilfields and gasfields.

Hydrogen can fuel boilers, lorries, buses, trains and industrial processes but does not exist as a fuel in nature, so it has to be manufactured. It produces no carbon when burnt but its carbon footprint depends on the emissions involved in the manufacturing.

Shell, BP and other oil and gas companies are hoping the promise of making blue hydrogen will allow them to continue exploiting their gas reserves while claiming they are on course to eliminate their emissions in line with the government’s 2050 net-zero target. But research by Cornell and Stanford universities in the US found that more methane, a potent greenhouse gas, would escape into the atmosphere during production of blue hydrogen than from burning gas for heat. This is because blue hydrogen plants would burn more gas to convert methane to hydrogen and capture the carbon.

The study, in the journal Energy Science & Engineering, concludes: “The greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen is more than 20 per cent greater than burning natural gas or coal for heat. The use of blue hydrogen appears difficult to justify on climate grounds.”

The study found that emissions from blue hydrogen could be reduced if renewable energy was used to make it and capture the carbon. While this would make it greener than burning natural gas for heat, it would still not be zero carbon because of methane leaks.

Robert Howarth, co-author of the study and professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell, said: “Politicians round the world ... are placing expensive bets on blue hydrogen as a leading solution in the energy transition. Our research is ... a warning signal to governments that the only ‘clean’ hydrogen they should invest public funds in is truly net-zero green hydrogen made from wind and solar energy.”

A government spokesman said: “Low-carbon hydrogen will be essential ... to eliminating the UK’s contribution to climate change by 2050, with more details to be set out in our forthcoming hydrogen strategy.

“Independent reports, including that from the Climate Change Committee, show a combination of blue and green hydrogen is consistent with reaching net zero.”

Well I’m shocked to learn that Boris is backing a technology that is a win for Shell and BP. Shocked.