Lancpudn
Well-known member
London went over it's entire 2017 emissions limit in just the first 5 days of 2017 that's grotesquely bad. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39088631
And it's not just cars. The UK government has been subsidizing the installation of diesel electricity generation farms to go along with renewable generators:The Telegraph said:In 2001, Gordon Brown, the then chancellor, overhauled vehicle excise duty so that cars that emitted a higher level of carbon dioxide faced a higher level of vehicle excise duty.
Labour introduced the new regime despite official warnings that diesel vehicles emit "10 times the fine particles and up to twice the nitrogen dioxide".
The move prompted a "profound" shift towards diesel cars, which produce lower levels of carbon dioxide because they are about 20 per cent more efficient than petrol engines.
Over the past decade, the number of diesel cars on Britain’s roads has risen from 1.6 million to more than 11 million and accounts for a third of vehicles.
However, diesel vehicles produce high levels of nitrogen dioxide, which can lead to respiratory disease and has been linked to 7,000 deaths a year.
Frank Kelly, the chairman of the Department of Health’s committee on air pollution, said the public were still being misled about the benefits of diesel cars.
He said: "I have full sympathy with the public who have not been provided balanced information on this issue.
"Even today if you go to buy a new car you are provided with lots of information about its CO2 emissions and nothing in respect to the pollutants it emits.
"The whole scenario is a very good example of why government policy needs to founded on best science available – not just one aspect, as it was in this case."
I'm sorry, but the UK's subsidies for diesel engines are beyond comprehension.The Sunday Times said:Broughton Gifford resident Martin Freeman is outraged and concerned that the plan could set a precedent. He said, "This application is outrageous. Diesel farms are dirty, noisy and ugly. They have no place in the countryside.
"Storing 90,000 litres of diesel with no additional protection or drainage looks like a recipe for disaster, especially in an area which is prone to flooding. It’s bad enough covering green fields with solar panels, but putting polluting power-plants next to them just adds insult to injury.
"We know from experience that once you build something like this, it will expand and others will follow. We also know that Wiltshire Council doesn’t enforce breaches of planning conditions. So the only way to ensure that it is safe and not the first of many is not to build it.
"We are subsidising renewable energy because it is clean and reduces our reliance on oil. Then we pay even greater subsidies for diesel farms because the renewable energy is unreliable. You couldn’t make it up."
Diesel is filthy, but it *is* a reliable back-up.RegGuheert said:I'm sorry, but the UK's subsidies for diesel engines are beyond comprehension.
These are grid-connected generators. Does it *really* make sense to eliminate coal-fired power plants which have already been built and then manufacture NEW DIESEL generators to take their place? The answer is that it makes no sense from any angle. It ranks right up there with leveling forests in North Carolina, pelletizing the wood, and then shipping it to the UK to burn in the formerly-coal-powered Drax plant, all the while increasing emissions and other forms of environmental damage of all kinds.SageBrush said:Diesel is filthy, but it *is* a reliable back-up.RegGuheert said:I'm sorry, but the UK's subsidies for diesel engines are beyond comprehension.
Can wind+battery be a sensible replacement ?.
Perhaps that's a better solution. While I'm not a fan of fracking, natural gas has allowed the US to reduce energy costs, emissions and improve security of supply. Perhaps it is the best interim technology to put into play while renewables mature.SageBrush said:Or something else ? Perhaps an NG plant.
I'm not sure, although a huge coal plant trying to serve as an infrequent, rapid ramp supplement or back-up to PV is never going to work.RegGuheert said:Does it *really* make sense to eliminate coal-fired power plants which have already been built and then manufacture NEW DIESEL generators to take their place?
I'm not well read about UK fossil fuel supplies and suppliers, but I could certainly understand a country deciding to avoid a strategy that depended on supplies from Russia.RegGuheert said:While I'm not a fan of fracking, natural gas has allowed the US to reduce energy costs, emissions and improve security of supply. Perhaps it is the best interim technology to put into play while renewables mature.
Of course it won't. Just like the huge coal power plants in my region do not function as a supplement to the PV generation on my house. Rather, the PV generation on my house reduces the amount of coal which needs to be burned.SageBrush said:I'm not sure, although a huge coal plant trying to serve as an infrequent, rapid ramp supplement or back-up to PV is never going to work.RegGuheert said:Does it *really* make sense to eliminate coal-fired power plants which have already been built and then manufacture NEW DIESEL generators to take their place?
What the UK has been "pursuing" is insanity. The sudden 180-degree about-face is a clear indication of such.SageBrush said:In a sense they are pursuing on a big scale what plug-in hybrids offer: immediate back-up with a liquid fossil fuel. I'll be more inclined to have an opinion when I can state with confidence the fractional carbon reduction from the scheme and the cost/carbon_reduction.
We have a similar situation: We drive about 17,000 miles/year in our 2011 Nissan LEAF and 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid using about 170 miles of fuel. All of the electricity for the LEAF is produced by our PV arrays. But I cannot imagine any scenario in which I think purchasing a diesel car or a diesel generator to offset coal production would be a good idea for the environment. I doubt you are, either.SageBrush said:This is a very YMMV, but I look outside at my Prius Prime with its yucky petrol ICE and think:
I wish I could use my LEAF for all my transport, but work is too far away
The Prime gets me to work at 105 mpg, and was inexpensive to purchase.
Overall, these two cars are run about 16,000 miles a year in my family and we consume about 100 gallons of petrol annually for out typical use.
I expect to swap the Prime for a Model 3 next year because I want to and I have the money, but LEAF+Prime is a damned good solution compared to my neighbors who currently consume ~ 1000 gallons a year for similar use profiles.
The UK already gets about 13% of their natural gas supply from Russia. The UK has fairly abundant shale gas resources, and has recently moved to start to develop them. The EU, OTOH, does not have such an option readily available to themSageBrush said:I'm not well read about UK fossil fuel supplies and suppliers, but I could certainly understand a country deciding to avoid a strategy that depended on supplies from Russia.RegGuheert said:While I'm not a fan of fracking, natural gas has allowed the US to reduce energy costs, emissions and improve security of supply. Perhaps it is the best interim technology to put into play while renewables mature.
It seems the debate continues about whether or not the North Sea is in terminal decline, but it already is insufficient to meet the UK's natural gas needs.SageBrush said:If the NG supply was North Sea it sounds a lot more attractive.
Perhaps, but that's not a panacea for UK's energy needs. There are no easy answers.SageBrush said:I was actually under the impression that the UK was going to build a huge electric connection to Norway for regional clean energy power sharing, but I am not clear about details.
This works while the coal plant is supplying the majority of power. It sounds like UK is trying to set up PV/Wind as the majority power and they need another source to cover the times when the local clean energy is inadequate.RegGuheert said:Of course it won't. Just like the huge coal power plants in my region do not function as a supplement to the PV generation on my house. Rather, the PV generation on my house reduces the amount of coal which needs to be burned.SageBrush said:I'm not sure, although a huge coal plant trying to serve as an infrequent, rapid ramp supplement or back-up to PV is never going to work.RegGuheert said:Does it *really* make sense to eliminate coal-fired power plants which have already been built and then manufacture NEW DIESEL generators to take their place?
The amount of electricity produced via solar and wind DROPPED last year from 24.6% to 24.6% while the amount of electricity produced via natural gas increased from 29.5% to 42.4%. Many new natural gas plants are "peaker" plants which can address shortfalls. Again, there is NO PLACE in this situation for diesel, IMO.SageBrush said:This works while the coal plant is supplying the majority of power. It sounds like UK is trying to set up PV/Wind as the majority power and they need another source to cover the times when the local clean energy is inadequate.
No argument. It does seem fair to point out though that the decisions were based on manufacturer claims of emissions that we now know to be grossly under-estimated. I'm surprised that the UK has not sued VW et al for pollution in the same way that the EPA has in the US. They could have their EV infrastructure paid forRegGuheert said:Transitioning vehicles from gasoline to diesel was a stupid move which has done significant damage to the environment there.
Enter your email address to join: