Forum menu
I’d be very interested to see how much if the workforce actually can work from home. I’m guessing it’s a relatively small percentage.
During the pandemic the percentage was quite high. Seems likely that whilst employers may plead that their staff cannot work from home, a lot probably can.
Of course, it would be rather difficult to just go straight to 50% home working immediately however with a bit of effort on the part of the government it's possible to achieve something significant.
A 50% reduction in traffic on the roads would make a huge difference in congestion, and stop the never-ending construction of roads which themselves produce a huge amount of CO2. Along with office blocks - concrete production is one of the world's biggest CO2 producers.
And I suspect that if 50% of workers worked from home it'd reduce the number of commuter miles by more than 50% because my guess is that the ones with the longer commutes would be the ones jumping at the chance to WFH.
I’m willing to bet the same 50p I lost to TJ yesterday that more people can’t work from WFH compared to those that can.
Doesn't mean it's not worth bothering with, does it? Why do we only need one single policy, why can't we do lots?
Doesn’t mean it’s not worth bothering with, does it?
No, not all, I loved my commute! But again it needs a serious looking at, as there's a host of secondary jobs that rely on workers all going to offices, from the cafes, restaurants that feed them, to the electricians, plumbers, and so on that fix them, to the folk running stationary businesses and IT businesses and on and on and on and...It's nothing short of a massive realignment of how we do "living and working"
I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying (as you have been) "Just reduce consumption" is hugely complex, and there are few (if any) simple answers.
A 50% reduction in traffic on the roads would make a huge difference in congestion, and stop the never-ending construction of roads which themselves produce a huge amount of CO2.
People still drive - WFH they just drive to the shops, to school, to the cafe. Rather than one journey in and one journey out morning & afternoon respectively, I'd actually be willing to bet there's a higher number of shorter journeys happening locally.
You've just moved the traffic around a bit rather than all going into "the city" and out again.
The turbine can be manufactured in a carbon neutral way. It isn’t, of itself, a CO2 emitter
It could, but as I pointed out, the energy economics in that case (as indicated by the EROI value of renewable power sources), would mean that electricity is much more expensive. My TV, mounted to the wall, is not a CO2 emitter by itself. However, a hell of a lot of CO2 was emitted to turn some rocks into precision semiconductors and then ship the various components around the world several times.
Yes, while in use, a turbine extracts energy from a source that doesn't produce CO2, but the energy and CO2 economics are not simple.
In fact I have no idea what your argument is.
I probably should summarise my opinions, instead of leaving it scattered across many comments.
1. It's (mostly) about energy usage, although it would also be nice not to extract so many minerals and turn them into persistent toxic pollutants. In my opinion, every decision should be framed with "how much energy did this take?" We also generally have very little idea just how much energy is used to make all of the things we use every day, a very large amount of that being for semiconductor devices in all of the electronics we buy.
The energy returned on energy invested values of our various options for power generation should inform us of the potential future energy economics, and the EROI for renewables is much worse than fossil fuels (obviously, because fossil fuels are essentially free, very high density energy). To me, a future where everything is wind or solar powered would not have affordable enough energy to power the manufacture of most of the devices we use every day, nor power anything like the amount of motorised transportation we currently perform.
2. Our lifestyle, and the amount of resources we consume, is wildly unsustainable by any means. And that's with only a small fraction of the global population living like we do.
3. The solutions we are generally being presented are, as far as I can see, practically ineffectual nibbling around the edges of the problem. They also co-incidentally will make a select group of people and companies very rich (I'm effectively invested in lithium, it's doing really well atm!). It doesn't help to make something 1% more "sustainable" and claim that it's "just the first step", when that solution has absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near 100%, or even 50%. They also have a lot of side effects - for example, the mandated switch to PHEVs and EVs mean that people like me, who use a bit of mechanical knowledge to keep old cars going for a very affordable price, will be obliged to pour more money into car ownership. Engineers like me will suffer as more and more industry and design moves overseas, because we keep mandating industries out of existence but continue to buy the end products from other countries. Consumers will suffer, as they have to spend huge amounts more on various essentials, for a disproportionally small decrease in CO2 output.
4. Solutions that really make a difference are not that hard to do (you all loved to lay into TJ for this opinion, but it's really not hard to give up buying new electronic items every few months, or cut the number of miles you drive). Somehow, however, it seems that the solutions to our environmental issues involve manufacturing and buying enormous quantities of high-tech electronic items.
5. Ultimately, energy will become more scarce, EVs, wind turbines, and mandated veganism or no, and that will make us find a solution.
Okay, so you've brought a load of problems, what's your solution? You talk about embedded energy a lot but don't address the difference it makes whether it's come from a sustainable source or not which then seems like you are advocating fossil fuels because they have a lower EROI.
4 is fair enough, that's just saying 2 differently.
5 is fundamentally wrong and as an engineer you really should know better. That's just utter nonsense.
the mandated switch to PHEVs and EVs mean that people like me, who use a bit of mechanical knowledge to keep old cars going for a very affordable price, will be obliged to pour more money into car ownership.
Don't think so, the plan is to stop selling new ICE cars, you'll still be able to drive the one you have or buy a used one. And in 2035 there will be lots of cheap used EVs around, and new ones will likely be as cheap as ICEs are now.
fossil fuels are essentially free
Eh? They take a fair bit of extraction and refining don't they?
That's why my diesel car costs ten times as much per mile to fuel as my EV.
During the pandemic the percentage was quite high. Seems likely that whilst employers may plead that their staff cannot work from home, a lot probably can.
I can't remember what happened when, cos it was so long ago, well seems like it anyway, but were people furloughed/laid off etc? The stas refelect people that were employed. A lot who probably couldn't work from home were probably not employed.
A few if us were discussing this. Once you factor in shops, manufacturing, teaching, support occupations (cleaning/ maintenance) building, servicing. There are a lot who can't. I guess what we need is a measure of what jobs could be done from home, not which ones are.
As I said. 4 day work week for all. Pick any 4 days you like.
You’ve just moved the traffic around a bit rather than all going into “the city” and out again
Which is actually good. It's not necessarily people making trips, it's when and where. Sitting in a traffic jam you are traveling 0 mike's per unit of pollution. Moving at a constant speed is much better. So if people do their trips at different times and different places, avoiding traffic, that will have a noticeable effect on pollution. Not as much as not driving mind you.
Okay, so you’ve brought a load of problems, what’s your solution?
I've given it, multiple times. Stop buying products with huge amounts of embodied energy (which is dominated by electronic goods like TVs, phones, laptops, etc), and avoid driving as much as possible. I also suggested turning your thermostat down a few degrees, but I got accused of killing people in the process....
5 is fundamentally wrong and as an engineer you really should know better. That’s just utter nonsense.
How so? Our society is fuelled by millions of years of stored solar energy, in the form of fossil fuels. We are getting through them at a huge rate, and there is nothing like it in terms of easy-to-access high-density energy (unless we go nuclear, or fusion becomes viable). As an engineer, I look at the EROI values of various energy sources, and that clearly informs me how much energy would cost from each source, on a level playing field. For example, the EROI value for nuclear is about 16x greater than solar, that is, you get 16x more energy per unit of energy invested in manufacturing the generation mechanism.
Don’t think so, the plan is to stop selling new ICE cars, you’ll still be able to drive the one you have or buy a used one.
Reliable 2nd hand cars are already getting more and more expensive. Also, denying future generations the cheaper method of doing things (that is in this case, running old cars and fixing them yourself), is also known as "pulling up the ladder".
And in 2035 there will be lots of cheap used EVs around, and new ones will likely be as cheap as ICEs are now.
We will see how the economics of EVs work out, but there will be no way you could fix a cheap, old EV with some spanners and a Haynes manual.
Eh? They take a fair bit of extraction and refining don’t they?
That’s why my diesel car costs ten times as much per mile to fuel as my EV.
Gas and coal, not so much. Petrol, yes, although it's not so big a deal (maybe 3% of the energy present in raw crude is used in refining). Diesel, less so. The reason diesel is so expensive (assuming you live in the UK) is that 72% of the price goes to the government in taxes. Obviously, re-fuelling an EV will be taxed more in the future, to make up the lost government income.
molgrips
Full MemberSubsidised, no? There are concerns even in France over economic viability:
OK, so France's nuclear is a gigantic economic disaster, but it's not a nuclear issue, it's a generations-long corporate malfeasance mixed with political dishonesty issue. Put simply, they've never properly funded decommissioning and they've got so used to kicking it down the road, and so content with the dishonesty and the nicer picture they can paint with lies, that they never had the will to do anything about it. And now it's too late. EDF is bankrupt and has been for years, they're just in the long tail of pretending it's not happening.
(this of course is a pretty good metaphor for global warming)
France has its actual-nuclear scandals too, like creusot, or the way safety issues at the new Flamanville reactor only ever get found by the external inspectors even though it's obvious that the builders are aware. But the financial stuff is just coincidentally-nuclear.
Also, denying future generations the cheaper method of doing things (that is in this case, running old cars and fixing them yourself), is also known as “pulling up the ladder”.
That's not what happening. 2035 is the deadline for stopping sales of NEW ICE cars. Cars sold in 2034 will still be available as old bangers in 2050.
there will be no way you could fix a cheap, old EV with some spanners and a Haynes manual.
Course there will. Shocks, steering gear, bushings, interior gubbins, bearings l, brakes etc etc will be fixable same as they are now. Most of the crap you had to fart about in the good old days like plugs, points, oil changes, filters, HT leads, carburettors, fuelling sensors cam belts and all won't apply to EVs obviously.
We will see how the economics of EVs work out, but there will be no way you could fix a cheap, old EV with some spanners and a Haynes manual.
This get's trotted out a lot but....
1) With regards to the computers, there's arguably less computing going on than a modern ICE engine.
2) There's no engine and gearbox in need of servicing and rebuilds, although that's been the case for a couple of decades at least with nmodern cars. Suspension, brakes, hubs etc that do still wear out aren't going to change much.
3) There's already people rebuilding crashed or otherwise written of Teslas from the ground up.
4) There's loads of people stripping the guts out of written off electric cars and building them into all sorts of classics and kit cars.
Also, this was discussed on the other recent thread, but with a lot of value tied up in the recyclable battery it'll be interesting to see whether the higher upfront costs of electric cars (rather than ongoing fuel costs) means they're kept on the road for longer as repair work out relatively economical Vs their higher scrap value.
it’ll be interesting to see whether the higher upfront costs of electric cars (rather than ongoing fuel costs) means they’re kept on the road for longer as repair work out relatively economical Vs their higher scrap value.
Well, they won't be more expensive for long. And the car won't be scrap when the battery goes because it's only one component and it can be changed. Once you stick in a refurbished battery the car is likely to be almost as good as new. There might be services where you pay £5k and drop it off for a full refurb and you get a nearly new car again.
The bigger issue is going to be the relative performance of 10 year old cars Vs their new equivalents. That's what'll depress the market for older cars.
I don't buy the argument that EVs will be repairable by the regular Joe.
With regards to the computers, there’s arguably less computing going on than a modern ICE engine.
Arguably not, EV motor control is not trivial. EVs also seem to take the opportunity to add as many touchscreens and un-necessary electronics as possible (not that regular cars avoid this, although a while ago Mazda said they were removing touchscreens from new designs).
There’s no engine and gearbox in need of servicing and rebuilds
Some EVs do have a gearbox, and all EVs have reduction gears. Most of them have coolant pumps, a number have oil pumps. There are plenty of parts to wear out.
There’s already people rebuilding crashed or otherwise written of Teslas from the ground up.
Like Rich Rebuilds, with the Youtube channel? He gave up on his big idea of rebuilding and repairing Teslas, and returned to ICE-based content, because of his frustration with Tesla's anti-repair attitude and how difficult they made it to do just that.
Likewise, using an EV powertrain to convert a classic car to electric requires a lot of knowledge and is not for the faint of heart. Not least because of all the proprietary electronics that the manufacturers would prefer you left alone.
EV batteries are also not currently recyclable, at least at any useful scale. Yes, I'm a aware that they will be, "very soon". As I said, we will see how the EV economics works out in the long term.