Environmentalism: Lasting Dependablity Vs. Modern Innovation

[Rich_P]

we need electricity, i don't care how much energy it takes to build a wind turbine/water powered thingy. I'd rather have a million of them if the lternative is another 23 nuclear power stations dotted around.

Got the land for a million wind turbines?

[Night Train]

Got the land for a million wind turbines?

Almost but not quite. However we have the seas for 'a million' turbines.

Britain is the windiest country in Europe and we also have a lot of coast lines and a lot of waves and tides.

We also have a lot of unused mines that could be good for ground sourced heat recovery and storage. Even if it isn't enough high grade heat for power generation it could be lower grade heat for district heating. There are a lot of towns built around mining.

[hattymender]

If I get my arse into gear and get waxoiling my 110 should still be around in 50 years. Maybe. (doubt the gear box will though. Or me) What's it going to run on?

I doubt all the renewable fuels added together would cover 50% of demand with current technology, and politicians are pissing in the wind if they think we'll willingly reduce consumption. And demand from developing countries will only increase.

Real alternatives?

Hydrogen? Seems to me that the problem with wind is that it's variable. Using it to make hydrogen gives a storable fuel? Or from wave power? Or solar power?

Coal gas? One thing we're not short of is coal. Discounted as dirty years ago but could it be cleaned up. Nobody seems to be trying very hard to find out.

Biofuel? Lot of growing room needed, is there enough? Especially if all the land is covered in turbines? Algae farms?

My (cynical) take is that at the moment we're collectively giving environmentalism lip service with some window dressing to make us feel better. When push comes to shove we'll be digging coal up again so we can carry on just the same as always.

[Night Train]

If I get my arse into gear and get waxoiling my 110 should still be around in 50 years. Maybe. (doubt the gear box will though. Or me) What's it going to run on?

I doubt all the renewable fuels added together would cover 50% of demand with current technology, and politicians are pissing in the wind if they think we'll willingly reduce consumption. And demand from developing countries will only increase.

Real alternatives?

Hydrogen? Seems to me that the problem with wind is that it's variable. Using it to make hydrogen gives a storable fuel? Or from wave power? Or solar power?

Coal gas? One thing we're not short of is coal. Discounted as dirty years ago but could it be cleaned up. Nobody seems to be trying very hard to find out.

Biofuel? Lot of growing room needed, is there enough? Especially if all the land is covered in turbines? Algae farms?

My (cynical) take is that at the moment we're collectively giving environmentalism lip service with some window dressing to make us feel better. When push comes to shove we'll be digging coal up again so we can carry on just the same as always.

It isn't so much a willingness to reduce consumption as a lack of choice. If you lost your job and was signing on you wouldn't spend as much money would you. Same with fuel. Once you find that there is a limited amount available you would use less of it.

Also, it isn't just motoring fuels. Homes and appliances are gradually using less energy by being more efficient. Motoring is going the same way. Unless you were restoring your Land Rover to original wouldn't you change to a more efficient engine if you could? I would happily get an old Series land Rover tomorrow if I could fit in an engine that will return 60+mpg as my car does or a 70 mile range on a charge if it was electric.

In the meantime reduction of energy use is something that just makes sense for an island nation. We are not 1950's Americans.

Hydrogen is a possible storage medium but there are plenty of options for static energy storage for both heat and electricity. We just need to get used to the idea that it is stored rather then made on demand. Gas, coal and oils are stored and purchased in bulk before use so electricity and heat could be the same.

There are plenty of attempts to make coal clean. The UK Government are looking at new, non existant, 'clean coal' power stations until nuclear is up and running (ten year lead time and limited supply of Uranium?) However, the 'clean' aspect is through carbon capture. The Germans have found that the energy required for carbon capture creates more CO2 then it saves and the Americans have decided that after spending $9b, IIRC, on research with no solution it is too expensive.

Biofuel isn't a viable alternative as we need the agricultural land for food crops to reduce the energy required to import it. There is a lot of small scale research into algae but that is a way off yet.

So, until we get to the point where we can have a viable, plentyful and user friendly alternative fuel or energy supply we should be looking at serious reduction in consumption. Little dinky car for commuting and shopping and the Land Rover for serious work and play days maybe.

[sean f]

"I'm waiting for someone to tot up the energy used in the manufacture of wind turbines or solar cells versus the energy they actually produce over their entire lifetime. I'm not convinced they break even, maybe they never will."

Then why would wind farms buy one ? Cost of turbine = materials + construction + energy. Money gained from turbine by selling the energy it creates.

If the turbine took more energy to produce (not including materials and construction) than it was ever going to produce I think the wind farm owners would notice pretty quickly.

Google as much as you can trust that has it at 3 - 9 months:

"The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months of operation"

The problem is you are looking at money not energy.

There is a fundamental difference, financially a wind turbine is efficient in the right place but this is only due to large tax breaks on renewable energy systems and large tax bills on fossil fuels systems creating a distorted industry (deliberately for "enviromental" reasons).

Hard numbers are very hard to get hold of for any of these things as it depends on what is included in each case. The energy of assembling and transporting pre manufactured components only, or the energy of producing those components down to raw materials.

Depending on the writers intention they are often very vague over what is included in each case and deliberately adjust the numbers to show the results they intend to achieve. There are some big scientific arguments going on over this type of thing with both sides of the debate accusing the other of fabricating data, or more often only using data which suports there case and ignoring the rest.

There is strong evidence the earth was considerable warmer in the historic past (wine was grown in Yorkshire in the middle ages, I'd like to see some one try that now!), but the evidence isn't hard numbers so difficult to use for statistics and often ignored. As others have said not that long ago the talk was all about heading for another ice age.

[Night Train]

The problem is you are looking at money not energy.

There is a fundamental difference, financially a wind turbine is efficient in the right place but this is only due to large tax breaks on renewable energy systems and large tax bills on fossil fuels systems creating a distorted industry (deliberately for "enviromental" reasons).

The reason why renewables seem to be expensive is because we are not paying anywhere near the true cost of fossil fuels.

As in the analogy I used earlier, using fossil fuels is eating into our savings. Imagine you are earning £10k pa but because you have £1m in the bank (with no interest) you spend at a rate of £200k pa. When challenged about your spending you say that the money in the bank is free money so you might as well use it. After 5 years it wont' be there any more and you bank starts giving you an overdraft at 20%apr and yet you still keep spending. At some point the bank will close your account and declare you bankrupt.

Using fossil fuels is very similar. It is the £1m that you have in the bank. When the fuel is so scarce that tar sands are being mined (Canada

is mining tar sands) the cost of the fuel will begin to rise.

The option is to spend this time (and a bit more money) gearing up for renewables as once the capital cost has been met the fuel resource is free. In the banking analogy it is like deciding to move your £1m savings into a high interest account and living off your income and interest payments. Your capital doesn't go away and your income is really (very nearly) free forever, albeit a little lower then you are used to.

Hard numbers are very hard to get hold of for any of these things as it depends on what is included in each case. The energy of assembling and transporting pre manufactured components only, or the energy of producing those components down to raw materials.

Depending on the writers intention they are often very vague over what is included in each case and deliberately adjust the numbers to show the results they intend to achieve. There are some big scientific arguments going on over this type of thing with both sides of the debate accusing the other of fabricating data, or more often only using data which suports there case and ignoring the rest.

Yep, data is manipulated by everyone with something to prove or money to gain.

Environmentalists will find any data that supports their version of climate change. I often imagine 'Life of Brian' "He has left us a shoe! It is a sign! We must take off one shoe! No, no, we must collect shoes!" However, environmentalists are not all wrong. There are genuine signs of global problems. Some are environmental, some are economic and some are energy. But we are not quite sure how to read all the signs and the impacts the problems will have collectively.

Governments will use any reason to tax the people more. Need I expand on that?

Corporations will do anything to ensure that we are hooked on their product and have no options when they increase the price. Oil companies will continue to sell oil at an affordable price, no matter how much it cost to get it out of the ground. They will do that for as long as other options are being developed outside of their control. It is done in the hope that people won't change fuels so that when the price has to rocket up we have nothing else ready to turn to and have to pay their price. When we are paying their higher prices we have no money left to research and develop alternatives and have to keep paying.

There is strong evidence the earth was considerable warmer in the historic past (wine was grown in Yorkshire in the middle ages, I'd like to see some one try that now!), but the evidence isn't hard numbers so difficult to use for statistics and often ignored. As others have said not that long ago the talk was all about heading for another ice age.

We are heading into an ice age according to the ice core records and the known cyclic fluctuations of the Sun and the Earth's orbit. However, the Earth's average temperature is still climbing. There are vineyards in Kent now and I have a very actively fruiting fig tree in Manchester.

One of the less understood aspects of climate change is that an average change in global temperature comes about from very chaotic, and extreme, changes in temperate regions.

For example, a 2 degree average rise in temperature may come from a 5 degree rise at the equator, a 3 degree drop at the poles and the bit in between, the temperate region, madly fluctuating +- 10 degrees either way.

[hattymender]

I have my doubts about how serious any politician is taking this. They'll promise the world. Tomorrow. If it doesn't cost them.

These days I drive to work. 20 years ago I went by train. My company used to put on buses or subsidise the train. It was good, went where I wanted to go and I could get a kip in on the way. They were stopped by the tax man as it was a 'benefit in kind'. Tax man = government. So, thanks to the government, I drive.

I also have cause to trundle down the M180 on occasion. There's a hundreds of lorries using this road from Immingham to get back to main north/south motorways. Immingham was built by the railways for the railways. A 60 mile round journey (at about 6mpg?) could be saved by using the railways to take the load to, say, Doncaster as a start point. But we haven't done that kind of joined up thinking since the Victorians.

There's a lot of pressure from the haulage companies for bigger lorries 'cos they're more efficient. I agree. But why play at it with 50 tons when we've had the ability to shift 2000 tons for over 100 years?

I wonder just how much fuel current policies are saving? My 110 uses fuel big time, so out of financial necessity I use it sparingly. My wife's Fiat does about 60mpg. So cheap to run we use it for a lot more miles than are strictly necessary. Given that we all have finite money to spend on fuel doesn't more efficient = more miles?

[sean f]

I wonder just how much fuel current policies are saving? My 110 uses fuel big time, so out of financial necessity I use it sparingly. My wife's Fiat does about 60mpg. So cheap to run we use it for a lot more miles than are strictly necessary. Given that we all have finite money to spend on fuel doesn't more efficient = more miles?

Very true, alot of people don't think about the financial side of things.

Basic econimics, if something is plentifull then it is cheap, if it is rare and every one wants it it becomes expencive.

The global oil price very much reflects the cost of production versus the world demand (with goverments and OPEC meddling on the side lines).

As oil production costs go up due to having to operate in more difficult areas (physically and politically) or extract more difficult oil (the oil shale reserves Night Train mentioned are huge but expensive to work) the price will rise, this WILL happen as oil is a finite resource. As the technology of drilling (we are drilling wells now that even 5 years ago were considered impossible) and extraction improve the prices are being held in check but thats all. It is very unlikely to simple run out, it will just get more difficult to get to till it reaches a price other options are cheaper.

Electric cars look unattarctive now (and remember where the elctricity has to come from at the moment!) but as petrol prices go up. £2 a litre maybe, £3 definately looking good, £8 I want one.

The research is definately needed and eventually things should be not just viable but attractive.

Other options will also need to be considered, a tidal barrage across the Bristol estuary would generate huge amounts of power but comes at a cost. There are many valleys in Dartmoor and I expect areas like the Lake District which could be used to generate hydro power but the political / enviromental cost means these are only being considered on paper. As energy costs go up these may eventually mean goverments would need to over rule planning considerations and build them to generate the power needed.

[Mark90]

Got the land for a million wind turbines?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8443865.stm

[Night Train]

Electric cars look unattarctive now (and remember where the elctricity has to come from at the moment!) but as petrol prices go up. £2 a litre maybe, £3 definately looking good, £8 I want one.

The electricity is currently still mostly fossil fueled and so the 'long tail pipe' argument applies. However, the power station is more efficent then a car engine, especially on shorter cold running journeys.

The reason I am building an electric car isn't so much that it will be a great saving of money or CO2 but just to be a little ahead of the game when the options are less and more electricity is from non fossil sources.

I am working on the basis that oil based fuels will always be polluting and will become more so over time due to more severe extraction methods and costs whereas electricity generation should become cleaner and more renewable over time. Then the issue will fall on the electricity storage medium.

[T1G UP]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/8443865.stm

excellent!

i'd like to be "off the grid"in our next house. i need some land on a decent slope thats facing west wth a natural spring,brook etc.

Ground source heat pump for background heating, aga for hotwater/heating. reseviour of water with a turbine for electicity to supply heat pump/house.possible a wind turbine bu there not that effecient on a small 10-20 kva scale.

i am fortunate to frequent Bath uni alot....they are trialling the co house at the mo. http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2009/07/16/balehaus-2/

i'd like one,i'd like to be off grid and off the governments radar!

[simonr]

The electricity is currently still mostly fossil fueled and so the 'long tail pipe' argument applies. However, the power station is more efficent then a car engine, especially on shorter cold running journeys.

The reason I am building an electric car isn't so much that it will be a great saving of money or CO2 but just to be a little ahead of the game when the options are less and more electricity is from non fossil sources.

I'm kind of tired of people (not you) making this 'long tail pipe' argument about electric cars - saying that the emissions are no better, just moved somewhere else!

Before I built my Electric Freelander, I did a rough calculation of what the emissions would be and the running costs. Now built, it's not quite as good as I'd hoped - but still markedly better than most IC engines!

Based on electricity being generated at about 0.56kg CO2 per kWh of electricity, my Freelander generates 88g CO2 per Km. The cradle to grave footprint is also improved by the vehicle largely being built from scrap!

That is 0.282 kWh per mile. That is roughly 1.9 pence per mile or the equivalent of 263 miles per gallon in terms of cost (based on 1 litre of Diesel being £1.10).

That comes out just better than the most 'environmentally friendly' ICE car in the UK which apparently has 89 g/km and a lot better than the average at 173 g/km. Reference here

So, although I do have a 'long tail pipe', it's a very thin tail pipe!

Si

[jeremy996]

I'm kind of tired of people (not you) making this 'long tail pipe' argument about electric cars - saying that the emissions are no better, just moved somewhere else!

As we seem to be making clear here, nothing is simple in real life.

Large scale coal fired electricity production produces large volumns of sulphur dioxide, which appears to be more damaging to plant and marine life than petrol/low sulphur diesel emmissions, so although your overall emission may be lower, they can be more damaging to a specific ecosystem than that from an IC engine. Harm/damage/efficiency is very certainly in the eye of the beholder; presently the fuss appears to be CO2, perhaps we need to relate it all to energy in/energy out. Can I please commend Without hot air, as a great approach to energy policy.

The key issue is that all energy use has an impact somewhere - your electric Freelander is much, much better than a diesel one, but still more damaging than walking or cycling. What we all need to realise is that there is no ONE solution and, unfortunately that means politicians and simple economics are likely to be hopeless at finding and nurturing the successful solutions. As the more militant greens of my aquaintance seem to want a return to the Dark Ages, we need to find a better way to negociate this issue.

My personal effort is very low key, being a rebuilt 200Tdi running on dual tank diesel/SVO; compared to the electric Freelander it is hopelessly inefficient, but it will easily go the 200 miles I sometimes drive in a day and will use a bit less fossil fuel than a plain 110CSW.

The mantra of Reduce, Re-use, Recycle is beautifully met by your Freelander, a project I deeply admire. It's fitness for purpose is brilliant and the reuse of scrap bits doublely advantageous.

[matt bristol]

The cradle to grave footprint is also improved by the vehicle largely being built from scrap!

unlike Hybrids produced by major car manufacturers. As said previously its a lifestyle thing that needs addressing

[Rich_P]

As said previously its a lifestyle thing that needs addressing

Very much so. I tried to take apart my mother's little loaf baker, only to find that two of the screws that hold it together are some sort of factory special. Standard screw drivers were of no use. All that had happened was that the central prong had stopped rotating, meaning a possible simple fix.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8443865.stm

That's pretty good looking. I only skimmed through it, but why aren't we using tidal power? Are these wind turbines able to generate more than tide driven generators?

[Superpants]

There have been a lot of interesting issues raised here, which I haven’t fully go the time to put my Tuppenth worth in, however there are a couple of areas in particular that are worth raising.

The area of electric and other power systems in vehicles is of great interest as I am actively working in electric vehicle systems development.

Hybrid vehicles seem to get a lot of knocking, but it often seems conveniently forgotten by those doing the knocking that the technology is not mature. Toyota made a brave decision in launch the Prius to an unknown market- they had nothing to compare it too, so obviously took a conservative approach and produced a successful vehicle that people wanted to buy. It may not be the most efficient car on the market but it has opened up the world’s car buyers to the fact that a hybrid is not only technologically viable, but it can be a practical day to day car. The numbers sold bear this out. In turn this has got people talking about the technology, and I believe in no small way heavily influenced other car makers into developing their vehicles to be more efficient (be that by improved engine efficiency, stop-start systems, other hybrids etc). (I fully realise that this is complicated by the various incentives from our governments.) . As more research is carried out we will see further improvements in the efficiency of our vehicles for some time to come. It’s an interesting area to be in- there are many small companies with innovative ideas- some I’m sure will be successful, others will probably fall to the wayside, but without this exploration, we won’t know the best technologies to back.

On the subject that this discussion started on, and has been proved out by various posts above, there is clearly less energy dependence to keep using an old car, but we as consumers have to accept that it is our own throwaway society that drives the new car market- the desire to always have the newest, shiniest toys won’t go away in a hurry. If we look at modern cars, we commonly now get much better distances out of our cars than we did 30 years ago, so there is an argument to keeping the scrappage cycle going. 30 years ago, you wouldn’t be surprised to have to change valves and camshafts on a car- this is a rarity these days (I remember helping my dad do this on his Cortina).

I’m not completely convinced on the global warming argument- I see it as much more complicated than the simplistic view taken by our politicians and press (This becomes clear if you read the IPCC documents published- they are all downloadable on their website). I would much rather see us looking at a holistic approach to resource usage reduction, be that materials or fuels, and than putting all our efforts into reducing Carbon Dioxide. I believe that “carbon sequestration” is barking up the wrong tree (!), primarily due to the energy involved (as mentioned before). This holistic approach would see us adopting a mix of options, and could also have the positive effect of improving energy stability (which will be an issue for many years to come due to where much of our oil and gas comes from!).

Without going too far into the hydrogen argument- I’m not convinced on that either- Have a read of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

It will be biased, but does present some interesting idea.

Enough waffling for now!

[steve b]

I came across an electric 2door RRC on Eblag today, looks like an old style forklift powerpack. Unfortunately its only 4x2,it was done a while ago according to the ad, maybe someone would like to add a linky thing...

cheers

Steveb - no connection just thought it was worth mentioning

[Night Train]

I came across an electric 2door RRC on Eblag today, looks like an old style forklift powerpack. Unfortunately its only 4x2,it was done a while ago according to the ad, maybe someone would like to add a linky thing...

cheers

Steveb - no connection just thought it was worth mentioning

This one?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Range-Rover-Classic-Two-Door-With-a-Difference_W0QQitemZ390149661163QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAutomobiles_UK?hash=item5ad6bb61eb

I am tempted to buy it for the electric parts rather then a restoration.

[steve b]

Yeah thats the one, I thought of your project when I saw it, as you say there is a set of running gear there, having said that leccy forklifts do come along cheap sometimes too. Would almost be worth going for a look just to see what else they have laying about...

cheers

Steveb

[gazelle]

I will start this off by mentioning that I am not really a fan of the Pious and its sisters. For most applications I still feel that the current technology is has more spin than reality.

Hybrids do however have a useful function as a town car.

Not withstanding the cradle to grave emissions/fuel economy on fuel, for town use they do reduce local emissions. This I think is the major benefit from hybrids.

Martin

[Lando]

I read an article from "Car" Magazine that was actually written in December 2007 (Article) that outlined the LR carbon offset programme. Looking now though, including all manufacturing and shipping, a new Land Rover is totally Carbon Neutral to 75,000km. This is spreading to countries all over the world. France, Sweden, Norway,China, Japan and the Middle East to name but a few. You can read more about it here

[Turbocharger]

The tech is very exciting but they need to be in conjunction with behaviour change, since good behaviour can outshine the very best tech, and there's a big carbon / energy / effort overhead if we're just increasing the complexity of the system to maintain the status quo.

I bought a small light conventional car and I see 40mpg with good performance. It irks me when I'm smugly driving at a sensible speed and a Prius, Civic hybrid or a Lexus "xxx-h" hoons past at 80mph, the driver totally missing the point.

[nicks90]

Large scale coal fired electricity production produces large volumns of sulphur dioxide, which appears to be more damaging to plant and marine life than petrol/low sulphur diesel emmissions, so although your overall emission may be lower, they can be more damaging to a specific ecosystem than that from an IC engine

on the subject of sulphur dioxide, people seem to forget that the biggest producers of sulphur dioxide is volcanos.

The Pu'u O'o eruption on the Kilauea volcano began in 1983. COSPEC measurements before the eruption showed that the volcano was releasing about 150 tons of SO2 per day, nearly all from the summit caldera. However, during the high fire-fountaining eruptions at Pu'u O'o the amount of SO2 released was as high as 30,000 tons per day (these episodes occurred every 3-4 weeks between 1983 and 1986 and lasted 24 hours or less). The current average emission is about 1,800 tons per day. (note - this is emissions per DAY when it is NOT ERUPTING, it does this every day!)

Most of the major eruptions around the world have had massive and immediate impacts on our environment and temperature. The rise of the dinosaurs is now being linked to massive eruptions at the end of the triassic period, the global cooling resulting in Greenland becoming not very green and quite icy is put down to a period of global dimming from ash released from the various Kamchatka Peninsula eruptions over 300 years in the dark ages.

There is even talk (but data analysis is hard to gather) that the warming of the oceans and possible melting of ice caps could be due to increased thermal vents in deep sea trenches. We dont know where most of these are - never mind monitoring them.

[redneck]

I read an article from "Car" Magazine that was actually written in December 2007 (Article) that outlined the LR carbon offset programme. Looking now though, including all manufacturing and shipping, a new Land Rover is totally Carbon Neutral to 75,000km. This is spreading to countries all over the world. France, Sweden, Norway,China, Japan and the Middle East to name but a few. You can read more about it here

Carbon neutral does not mean pollution neutral.

I work in the nuclear industry which is equivalent to wind power in carbon production, but I can bet I know which you would rather have in your backyard.

[Bowie69]

Carbon neutral does not mean pollution neutral.

I work in the nuclear industry which is equivalent to wind power in carbon production, but I can bet I know which you would rather have in your backyard.

Yup, nuclear! Am I weird?