Jump to content

Will new bill save red diesel?


Midnight

Featured Posts

10 minutes ago, peterboat said:

 I for one think its to late without massive change and people would rather die than change

11 minutes ago, peterboat said:

 

 

 

Change is gradually being forced on people. 

4 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

So your saying they are crying emergency just to reduce pollution 

Yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Kerbside charge points are viable and the grid already has enough capacity to cope with EVs, just needs reorganising. 

Well, that's that sorted then.  All we have to do is bridge the chasm between concept and reality. :D

 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

As others have said I doubt such trivia will be even known by most of the peeps with any clout. Its the future and being a sovereign government that counts and that will have to be negotiated over a long period of time. much like chemotherapy can be ongoing over a period of years to eradicate disease. I spose this and other matters could be challenged over a period of years?

That's kind of the point. Once the EU courts are off our backs maybe the status quo will remain as it's not at all high on the political agenda and probably a pain in the arse to HMRC. Wishful thinking maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Cost will reduce use and so emissions it will also force cleaner methods of propulsion upon us. My boat is electric propulsion powered by solar it does what I want it to do

Can’t imagine for one minute, that the small amount extra for DERV over red would change anyone behaviours.  It needs a much more drastic change if that is the objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, john6767 said:

Can’t imagine for one minute, that the small amount extra for DERV over red would change anyone behaviours.  It needs a much more drastic change if that is the objective.

I think you may be misunderstanding Peterboat's post

 

"Cost will reduce use" 

 

Suggesting that as cost increases, volumes will reduce.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Once ICE's are consigned to history it will be announced  'co- incidentally' that the climate 'emergency' is over. 

 

I'm interested what makes you think that.

 

I'm also interested why you use inverted commas around the word "emergency". Do I detect a note of scepticism about the science of climate change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Onionman said:

 

I'm interested what makes you think that.

 

I'm also interested why you use inverted commas around the word "emergency". Do I detect a note of scepticism about the science of climate change?

There is always climate change but I'm sceptical about the emergency bit. 

1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Only if we've stopped jetting off to exotic locations (huh) and are eating a lot less meat. 

 

 

 

Maybe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I still struggle with the fact that electricity still has to be made somehow, and somewhere, and there will be some kind of environmental price to pay, such that all we are doing is moving the location, and possibly the timing, of the pollution.

 

As for nuclear, unless I have missed something, this is merely storing up a major environmental problem for the future.

 

 

 

Yes, you are missing something indeed. Nuclear waste is perfectly manageable given political will (and that involves incuding the cost of managing waste in the cost of electricity). Ignore the zillion year storage claims; you can transform waste into much shorter half-life elements.

 

Also bids for offshore wind farms recently hit record lows (in short, they are economically not just viable but cheap). Solar goes from strength to strength with improvements in efficiency and reduced cost of manufacture. So there are zero emission generation methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

There is always climate change but I'm sceptical about the emergency bit. 

Maybe. 

 

What evidence do you have that the current rapid change in CO2 level and the associated rapid climate change is similar to previous natural changes in climate.

 

I find that people who take the "there's always climate change" line tend to be in denial but choose to dress it up as a scientific observation suggesting that the current situation has happened before, when it hasn't.  It might seem like a generalisation but my observation seems always to be on the money.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

So your saying they are crying emergency just to reduce pollution 

Nah, It's Marxists jumping on the bandwagon so that they can boss everyone around. Any fule knows that.

 

MP.

 

28 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

There is always climate change but I'm sceptical about the emergency bit. 

How much climate change is required to constitute an emergency?

 

MP.

 

Edited by MoominPapa
spilling
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Onionman said:

 

Yes, you are missing something indeed. Nuclear waste is perfectly manageable given political will (and that involves incuding the cost of managing waste in the cost of electricity). Ignore the zillion year storage claims; you can transform waste into much shorter half-life elements.

"Given political will" is rather the key here.  Have you noticed any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Onionman said:

 

Yes, you are missing something indeed. Nuclear waste is perfectly manageable given political will (and that involves incuding the cost of managing waste in the cost of electricity). Ignore the zillion year storage claims; you can transform waste into much shorter half-life elements.

 

Also bids for offshore wind farms recently hit record lows (in short, they are economically not just viable but cheap). Solar goes from strength to strength with improvements in efficiency and reduced cost of manufacture. So there are zero emission generation methods.

I think you will discover wind turbines are getting ever bigger and are economical, cheap and going up like their is no tomorrow! we have the largest offshore wind farm and are busy building an even bigger one, solar is ok but in this country the sun doesnt always shine but the wind sure does blow. So maybe we have to build what is right for the country, and although I love solar I have added a VAWT for the days when the sun doesnt shine. On a commercial basis in this country turbines are king

Edited by peterboat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Onionman said:

 

Yes, you are missing something indeed. Nuclear waste is perfectly manageable given political will (and that involves incuding the cost of managing waste in the cost of electricity). Ignore the zillion year storage claims; you can transform waste into much shorter half-life elements.

You say that it "is" perfectly manageable, but that this is subject to "political will".... which suggests that isnt currently being managed perfectly, that there is currently no political will, and that there will come a day of reckoning, whether that be cost or environmental.

 

30 minutes ago, Onionman said:

 

Also bids for offshore wind farms recently hit record lows (in short, they are economically not just viable but cheap). Solar goes from strength to strength with improvements in efficiency and reduced cost of manufacture. So there are zero emission generation methods.

 

 

I saw a TED Talk by a Dutchman some years ago, and he was suggesting that money should not be invested in managing climate change because, over a hundred year period, technology will advance to the point where all power is provided by zero emission methods. He suggested that money would be better directed to more immediate humanitarian issues.

 

I think his opinion was been pretty much poo poo'd by anybody who mattered, yet your above statements suggest that he was probably correct to a degree.

 

Presumably, someone is looking for a way to cover large parts of various deserts in solar panels, and a way to get the power created around the world; looking at every tidal gate with a view to extracting the energy and moving it as above; at every river with a reasonable flow; at every location with enough reliable/regular wind, and so on.

 

Assuming the will and the desire, and given reducing costs, increased expertise, and new discoveries, there is every chance that zero emission is possible/likely within half a century.... particularly if you consider what has happened over the past half a century or so.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Climate change and humanitarian issues can both be addressed. There is plenty of money in the world to do it.

 

 

The trouble is, nearly all the money is in the wrong hands.

 

 

 

Yes big oil has a vested interest in keeping us reliant on what they have plenty of

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Climate change and humanitarian issues can both be addressed. There is plenty of money in the world to do it.

 

 

The trouble is, nearly all the money is in the wrong hands.

 

 

 

Probably why the guys opinion was poo poo'd. Vested interests have always ruled the roost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Climate change and humanitarian issues can both be addressed. There is plenty of money in the world to do it.

 

 

The trouble is, nearly all the money is in the wrong hands.

 

 

 

Your right, reduce the humans, stabilise the climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think you may be misunderstanding Peterboat's post

 

"Cost will reduce use" 

 

Suggesting that as cost increases, volumes will reduce.

 

I don’t think I am.  My first response was to the use of DERV would reduce emissions.  I don’t think it would, and I don’t think the increase in cost from red to DERV would make any noticeable reduction in consumption.  If the intention is to reduce consumption you would need to do more that add tax to the domestic element of diesel usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Onionman said:

 

What evidence do you have that the current rapid change in CO2 level and the associated rapid climate change is similar to previous natural changes in climate.

 

I find that people who take the "there's always climate change" line tend to be in denial but choose to dress it up as a scientific observation suggesting that the current situation has happened before, when it hasn't.  It might seem like a generalisation but my observation seems always to be on the money.

Just a feeling, a gut feeling if you like. 40 years ago climate scientists were saying the evidence was pointing to another mini ice age on the way, so I am sceptical. 

 

Your observations are off the mark in my case. 

1 hour ago, MoominPapa said:

How much climate change is required to constitute an emergency?

 

MP.

 

Don't know, you tell me. 

Edited by nb Innisfree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, john6767 said:

I don’t think I am.  My first response was to the use of DERV would reduce emissions.  I don’t think it would, and I don’t think the increase in cost from red to DERV would make any noticeable reduction in consumption.  If the intention is to reduce consumption you would need to do more that add tax to the domestic element of diesel usage.

Believe me if diesel goes up to much people will cut down on  use, also I suspect even more boats will install solar to save on engine running to charge batteries 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Believe me if diesel goes up to much people will cut down on  use, also I suspect even more boats will install solar to save on engine running to charge batteries 

I suspect CRT will do their bit in getting people to run their engines less by letting the system fall to bits. 

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.