Forum menu
I agree shipping is a necessary evil and the only option....but it isn't clean. Slugging thousands of tons through water which is like trying to propel something through porridge. The CO2 per ton production will be out of the park compared to any other form of transport. But as you say, there are no other viable options to move the cargo around the world.
Maritime transport per KM is the best in terms of CO2 but often results in very long Journeys which is why Decathlon reckon they produce less CO2 using rail transport from China to Europe.
We can build solar panels and windmills faster than we can build electric cars - Britain is the proof - check out the UK wind capacity over the past five years.
Sure, but we need to do the following:
1. Decarbonize existing supply
2. Stop using gas
3. Stop using IC cars
4. Decomission the existing nuclear fleet
Undoubtedly there's a great deal more we can do on demand side, but nevertheless sufficient capacity is going to be enormously challenging
Time to get on with it then. How much gas and electricity does your house consume, ransos?
UK electricity is now more like 30% renewable.
Serious question: is renewable the same as co2 neutral?
Time to get on with it then. How much gas and electricity does your house consume, ransos?
Quite a bit. It's a consequence of not ruining people's health by burning wood. 😉
The CO2 per ton production will be out of the park compared to any other form of transport.
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
Shipping is incredibly efficient per tonne transported and produces a lot less CO2 compared to moving the equivalent by road.
Slugging thousands of tons through water which is like trying to propel something through porridge
You're not a naval architect are you? 🙂
No, bluebird, just as electric cars aren't CO neutral. But the CO emmitted per kWh is tiny compared with burning fossil fuels. A proportion of the embedded energy in cars, windmills and solar panels is from fossil fuels, and some of the conponents are derived from fossil fuels. Over the lifetime of the windmill it will produce many times more enregy than the embedded energy.
If you have a bag of potatoes you can either eat them all, or plant enough of them to have more potatoes than you've ever had in the future.
Go on, ransos, be specific about your bills and kms covered in your car (diesel or petrol?) and we'll do some calculations on the health risks of me burning 2m3 of wood in an efficient stove, using no gas and producing more electricity than I use with your lifestyle.
I've aimed at doing the best I can and still live a western lifestyle, we'll see how that compares with someone making no effort and slagging anyone off who does with false arguments.
Even if electric cars are currently worse than ICEs, that will ONLY change if they become more prevalent. Recycling will become more economically attractive, and cheaper with scale economies. And there'll be more EOL product to recycle. And the infrastructure will be created because there'll be an opportunity to make money from it.
So if we need to take a hit early on to establish the concept, then that's fine, because we'll benefit in the long term.
Re shipping - not as much friction as you think in water:
Go on, ransos, be specific about your bills and kms covered in your car (diesel or petrol?) and we'll do some calculations on the health risks of me burning 2m3 of wood in an efficient stove, using no gas and producing more electricity than I use with your lifestyle.
I was talking about national infrastructure and having what I thought was an interesting exchange, only for you to make it personal. I've no intention of disappearing down your rabbit hole, and if you can justify your cancer stove, then that's fine with me.
Toodle pip!
It has to be personal because it's all down to personal choices and slagging people off for making the right ones isn't constructive.
It is an interesting exchange, but whilst I'm happy for you to criticise the health implications of wood burning it's hypocritical of you to do so whilst consuming electricity produced from gas and coal, and driving an ICE car which are not only a public health issue but also green housing the planet which burning wood that is replanted does not.
Even so, we're looking at a real world figure of say less than 80g CO2e/km which is way better than anything you'll see from an IC car.
Also bear in mind that the Tesla is a massive boat of a car, so this is waaaaaaay better than anything of a similar size and power...
Wood burning is carbon neutral apart form processing and trnasport - in my case that's electric chain saw and splitter and a wheel barrow.
Only where you are growing at a similar rate to burning. Small caveat.
And wood burning is only a concern where the air doesn't move very much such as in towns and cities. Much like diesels in that respect.
phiiiiil
Even so, we're looking at a real world figure of say less than 80g CO2e/km which is way better than anything you'll see from an IC car.
Also bear in mind that the Tesla is a massive boat of a car, so this is waaaaaaay better than anything of a similar size and power...
and, in the real world, thanks to short journeys, colds starts and poor driving (lots of braking) an ICE generally can't get anywhere near the CO2 figure generated over the certification test cycles that include a nice warm 25degC start, and a smooth, relatively long distance drive cycle
I'd suggest, that on average, drivers in the UK only get at best something like 75% of the certified consumption capability of their ICE
(ie, the cert number is say 50mpg, you get a bit less than 40 as a year round average)
Also the g/km figure corresponds to the combined cycle fuel economy figure. If you only drive round down you'll get 75% of the urban cycle figure (ish) which will be terrible.