Wow, thanks for that. I too was surprised at Norway and Iceland's CO2 emissions.
I'm surprised this isn't used as ammunition by the likes of Sunak to justify his policy of delaying some of the targets, where many other Western countries are going to run roughshod over their own future targets.
Perhaps over time it will become evident that it is countries with substantial nuclear power generation are those with low CO2 / capita outputs.
The issue here is the erroneous belief by climate deniers that you can drive everywhere at a steady speed.
I am no climate denier. I know ALL about climate. Its you that is in denial
And where did 'everywhere' come into my post?
Frankly Fred 'xx' your posts are getting pathetic. Is the XX because you identify as a trans woman? That would explain your insistence that what sex you THINK you are is genetically determined and not simply a failure to face up to puberty...
You'd think so, but I see France is only two places down the table than we are at 5.18 tpc despite having loads of nukes. Must be all those Renaults and Citroens!
You clearly don't and don't care of the consequences if some of the predictions come true. I would expect you would be the type to say that smoking isn't damaging to health too, and believe the same nonsense spouted by tobacco companies too.
Some of us families and children who will inherit the planet after I'm long gone. You have no such family, so I can understand your selfish position, without a care for the future nor a care of the risk burning fossil fuels brings us.
Good, so you accept that there is quite a bit of acceleration and braking in typical driving, where an EV with regenerative braking can make use of energy recovery. Some idiot isn't convinced this it true and implied all driving would be at a constant speed. What a fool.
That just shows you are more ignorant than ever.
In terms of *electricity generation* nothing beats nuclear+ hydro - switzetrland, France, sweden are all way down but of course Frenchmen drive cars and their industry uses gas.
All the nations with high renewables have much higher per MWh Co2 emissions because of the need for fossil backup, There used to be a website but it was run by renewable people and they shut it down when the facts started to be displayed on it.
*plonk!* I am not interested in emotional weasels who twist facts to confirm their juvenile belief systems
At the risk of putting words into TNP's mouth, I assess his position as:
1) We have no proof that this is man-made. Climate is fully chaotic and we are still coming out of the 18thC cold period - when the Thames froze. 2) Nothing that humans can do (and at great expense) will alter what the climate does.This is completely irrelevant. Do try to stay focussed.
See (1) and (2) above.
*Some* energy recovery.
Here you're just being a twerp again.
There was also no proof, in many eyes, that smoking caused lung cancer and Emphysema for decades when the smart people accepted the opposite claims in the peer reviewed community.
Do you also deny that man is putting large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, and depleting resources for our children and our children's children?
Do you also deny that putting unprecedented amounts may have severe consequences for our children and our children's children?
The issue is that we are living where we simply don't know the consequences, and while I accept that extinction events haven't been made by man up until now, we simply don't know the consequences of man's overall interaction with natural Earth cycles.
Yes, some of us recognise that and that we don't drive at steady speed.
I didn't recite an erroneous unsubstantiated claim, "an EV makes it MORE economical than driving at a steady speed 'because its got regenerative braking'"
It's not relevent to what we're discussing, which is about the climate, not about ciggies.
I have reliable insurance. If it's not reliable then there's not much point. You are proposing to insure me against the risk of "global warming catastrophe", proposing to charge a premium of a large number of £trillions, and refusing to give me any guarantees about any payout should the insured risk occur. In fact, your insurance company is probably trading while insolvent.
And you can't even define exactly what the risk is, neither its likelihood nor the nature of it.
The denial aspect is the same. There was scientific consensus that cigarettes caused cancer and Emphysema yet many were in denial.
Quite, since I can't get insurance for my children, nor my children's children in respect of anthropogenic climate change, it's best to alleviate the cause of a potential catastrophe, as well as preserve Earth's resources.
Which is not at all what I said. I said that short runs were more efficient than long one - because short runs are generally at lower speeds (motorways not involved) and therefore there is less drag. Regeneration helps compensate for frequent stops and starts.
With an ICE vehicle, short runs, from cold are very inefficient and there is no compensation for stop-start conditions.
+1 to all of that!
Much less scope for being sceptical re: ciggies.
AISB, the best way to meet all those goals would be an act of self-immolation by the entire human population of the planet.
+1
As most of us on this newsgroup appear to be of a certain age our children and chidren's childrens already have the ability to make their own decisions on what to do about their energy use and how it is generated.
No, you didnt say that at all.
You said that EVS were most efficient (best mpWh) in stop start conditions because of their regeneration.
irrelevant and a complete straw man, and you use of it demonstrates that you have run out of rational arguments, We are not and were not discussing ICE vehicles.
Prezactly. FX is thinking with his endocrine system. He has bought into all the self righteous emotional faux arguments of the post modern Marxist narrative and left any reason far far behind in his righteous indignations about what he has been told is the problem.
All arguments are not from data, logic, reason or cost benefit analysis, but from moral virtue signalling political propaganda culled from the BBC or the guardian or equivalent.
Grandchildren? Vicious little carbon emitters, Strangle at birth. :-)
Add to that the incerasing urbaniaztion of the world and that alone, and the location of the themrmoters accounts for most 'man made global warming'.
That is the crux of it. Cost benefit analysis of trying to stop Nature in her tracks or just going along and adapting to it shows the futility of 99% of all ecoBollox
He cant .He is very emotional about it all
It's a playing of the morality card that betrays the ultimate Left Wing Art Student mind.
In a sane world, we should perhaps perform the following steps.
1/. Is climate change happening?It would be extremely strange if it were not. Only Climate Deniers (People who Believe In Man Made Global Warming) deny that *without human intervention* climate doesn't change and never has and conditions in
1940 were 'normal' and 'what the world ought to be like'2/. What difference will it make and how much will it cost to adapt to it, or modify it?
Here we run into some huge unknowns. The stated function of the IPCC is to establish the difference, and suggest modes of adapting or combating it, but its total lack of accuracy in even establishing what warming there may have *been*, let alone predicting it, makes its recommendations so much hand-wavey nonsense.
It is in short trying to do the impossible.
What we can do is calculate the costs of things like renewable grids and so on, and the numbers are staggering. It is possible to establish for example with a far higher degree of certainty that an 'all renewables grid' would simply destroy the nations economy and its environment and cause infinitely greater damage to 'our grandchildren' than a mere 1°C rise in temperature.
Furthermore there is no need to limit fossil fuel usage. the scarier nonsense is predicated on the basis that we continue to burn fossil fuel at the same or greater rate. We can't. It is running low and getting increasingly expensive to the point where its economic viability is in question.
Net zero by 2050 is not a government goal so much as a physical and natural imperative. The market will dictate what we replace it with *if the government doesn't interfere*. If it hadn't we would be massively nuclear by now. Instead we have spent enough money to easily duplicate existing nuclear capacity on windmills and solar panels that do not in the slightest affect our CO2 emissions, merely the cost of electricity.
3/. What therefore, removing politics and hand-wavey emotional art student bollocks from the arena, is the least cost maximum benefit strategy with respect to to two things - possible CO2 induced climate change, but more immediately, far more alarmingly, and with far further reaching implications, the necessity of transitioning away from fossil fuels certainly locally, and probably globally, simply because of availability, price and the consequent movement of capital from industrialised consumer to oil rich sheikhdoms, and of course Russia.
Again?
But need help from a 10-yo when the iPhone or iPad goes 'wrong'
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.