T9 man
TC ModFather
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/ultra-low-emission-zone
Please save your bleeding heart pollution in the environment nonsense in London for somebody else; I am really NOT interested in the slightest!
London - Ultra low emission zone
- Thread starter T9 man
- Start date
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/ultra-low-emission-zone
Please save your bleeding heart pollution in the environment nonsense in London for somebody else; I am really NOT interested in the slightest!
HDi fun
TC ModFather
1. How does fuel duty make it (fuel) burn cleaner?
2. Diesel engines are extremely clean when running at idle speed (which they do most of the time in Central London).
3. If Boris removes fifteen quid each day for driving a non Euro 6 compliant diesel into London then that's fifteen quid each day that us poor subjects cannot put otwards the cost of a cleaner vehicle!!!!
2. Diesel engines are extremely clean when running at idle speed (which they do most of the time in Central London).
3. If Boris removes fifteen quid each day for driving a non Euro 6 compliant diesel into London then that's fifteen quid each day that us poor subjects cannot put otwards the cost of a cleaner vehicle!!!!
geraint13
Pro Tuner
I am so glad I don't drive up there no more. its ridiculous.
If owning and using a car is too expensive the economy will just fail. Cars are an essential in todays world for most people!
It wouldn't be too bad if the alternatives were flexible and cheap, and I suppose transport in London is quite good compared to the rest of the country.
Cars are not the evil people make them out to be. The real polluters IMO are power stations and intensive cattle farming. Tax these to the hilt if your serious about reducing pollution but expect a massive backlash as it will affect more people.
I'm not sure an ecologically friendly lifestyle will work in todays world.
It wouldn't be too bad if the alternatives were flexible and cheap, and I suppose transport in London is quite good compared to the rest of the country.
Cars are not the evil people make them out to be. The real polluters IMO are power stations and intensive cattle farming. Tax these to the hilt if your serious about reducing pollution but expect a massive backlash as it will affect more people.
I'm not sure an ecologically friendly lifestyle will work in todays world.
geraint13
Pro Tuner
it wont as all power has to come from somewhere. electric, gas etc................ all from a source that's either burning fuels or has an effect on the environment like nuclear.
the only true ecologically sound lifestyle will send us back to the stone ages !! IMO
the only true ecologically sound lifestyle will send us back to the stone ages !! IMO
HDi fun
TC ModFather
Not entirely sure this is exhaustive - no pun intended.
Fossil fuel burned at an electricity power station (more accurately should be called an energy conversion facility) are burned far more efficiently than they are inside the cylinders of an internal combustion engine installed in a car.
Power and energy are totally different things.
When the internal combustion engine was first installed in a motor car we'd never have imagined:
1. It would catch on
2. The availability of fuel - petrol (originally sold by chemists as 'motor spirit') would be widespread.
It has caught on, to coin a phrase. And mineral derived fuel is widely available throughout most of the populated world.
So, we can conjecture that the current (no further pun intended) electricity generation, transmission and distribution system will advance in response to the meet the demand of electric fuelled vehicles. Much like the extraction, fractioning, and distribution of mineral fuels has advanced over the last 100 years.
Moving on, I believe that nuclear is still the best and most efficient method of driving large scale electricity generation facilities. We should not be overly alarmed by nuclear accidents in the recent past. Reactor technology is very different now from the way it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Lessons have been learned.
Furthermore, far more people have come to harm as a result of coal mining accidents than have come to harm as a result of nuclear accidents. It's a strking contrast.
I cannot be bothered to draw parallels with the nuclear weaponry that is so frequently associated with nuclear electrcity generation. The two are not remotely connected. Anyone who tries to use a moral argument against nuclear electricity on the grounds that it facilitates weapons.
Let's take a fly on the wall approach:
1. Fossil fuels are allegedly limited in supply.
2. Is there enough fossil fuel to wreck the Earth?
3. Anwsering 2: Possibly not, when it's gone it's gone so the damage stops there and then
4. (Slightly sideways point): It's all solar powered anyway - coal is organic matter from millions of years ago deposited in the Earth's crust. Those trees grew by sunlight.
4(a): Those crustaceans and other organic lifeforms which have created oil also grew under the influence of solar energy.
Let's assume just for the sake of this post that there is a superior being or force. That being or force made nuclear available to us, and allowed us 200-300 years worth of fossil fuels to utilise and keep us going whilst we unravel the nuclear thing.
I can't see the purpose of any moral or religious arguement against nulear derived electricity.
Fossil fuel burned at an electricity power station (more accurately should be called an energy conversion facility) are burned far more efficiently than they are inside the cylinders of an internal combustion engine installed in a car.
Power and energy are totally different things.
When the internal combustion engine was first installed in a motor car we'd never have imagined:
1. It would catch on
2. The availability of fuel - petrol (originally sold by chemists as 'motor spirit') would be widespread.
It has caught on, to coin a phrase. And mineral derived fuel is widely available throughout most of the populated world.
So, we can conjecture that the current (no further pun intended) electricity generation, transmission and distribution system will advance in response to the meet the demand of electric fuelled vehicles. Much like the extraction, fractioning, and distribution of mineral fuels has advanced over the last 100 years.
Moving on, I believe that nuclear is still the best and most efficient method of driving large scale electricity generation facilities. We should not be overly alarmed by nuclear accidents in the recent past. Reactor technology is very different now from the way it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Lessons have been learned.
Furthermore, far more people have come to harm as a result of coal mining accidents than have come to harm as a result of nuclear accidents. It's a strking contrast.
I cannot be bothered to draw parallels with the nuclear weaponry that is so frequently associated with nuclear electrcity generation. The two are not remotely connected. Anyone who tries to use a moral argument against nuclear electricity on the grounds that it facilitates weapons.
Let's take a fly on the wall approach:
1. Fossil fuels are allegedly limited in supply.
2. Is there enough fossil fuel to wreck the Earth?
3. Anwsering 2: Possibly not, when it's gone it's gone so the damage stops there and then
4. (Slightly sideways point): It's all solar powered anyway - coal is organic matter from millions of years ago deposited in the Earth's crust. Those trees grew by sunlight.
4(a): Those crustaceans and other organic lifeforms which have created oil also grew under the influence of solar energy.
Let's assume just for the sake of this post that there is a superior being or force. That being or force made nuclear available to us, and allowed us 200-300 years worth of fossil fuels to utilise and keep us going whilst we unravel the nuclear thing.
I can't see the purpose of any moral or religious arguement against nulear derived electricity.
Some good and interesting points there HDI, you're on top form today! We could also harness fusion, this is where I think the future of energy production lies. If we can do what the sun does on a smaller scale we'd be on to a winner!
HDi fun
TC ModFather
Fusion is probably the holy grail (still no puns !!! :-D ) of Nucleur energy conversion. Physicists have been working on it for years.
I still think an answer lies in harnessing belly button fluff to power our cars!
geraint13
Pro Tuner
good argument Paul. I wouldn't throw the nuclear war head in with power stations. non effective point. As said, fusion is the way forward, but imo I think its still 50-100 years off. (not that im a nuclear physicist lol)
st24
The Torque Meister
So in theory the bigger your belly the more energy you harnessI still think an answer lies in harnessing belly button fluff to power our cars!
That's about right!
Yugguy
Torque King
A) Trouble with charging like this all it means is it is simply OK to pollute as long as you are rich.
b) I dont know what it's like in London but in Cov the problem seems to largely be idling taxis - walk past a rank of 15 of them all smoking away and you'll see what I mean.
b) I dont know what it's like in London but in Cov the problem seems to largely be idling taxis - walk past a rank of 15 of them all smoking away and you'll see what I mean.
Similar threads
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
London's first driverless cars based on Heathrow 'pods'- Started by T9 man
- Replies: 5
-
