Greed and tax its that simple...
So, is the petrol running out and stuff?
- Thread starter Edrof
- Start date
Greed and tax its that simple...
I did indeed, however solar polar sounds much better.
How do we decide which 1.58% of the UK to cover? It's a small percentage, but it's several million square metres. Just going to stick it in the countryside somewhere? Stick them all over houses? Plus storage/demand issues which drunkenmaster has covered more than I can be bothered to at this time in the morning.
You stick them on roofs. Just like germany, 2% of electrical supply now done by PV due to very good FIT, so nearly all private instalation. Several companies working on mass storage as well.
Presumably Germany are the "pioneers" of this source of electricity seeing as you keep referencing them... and I think the fact it is only 2% of their electricity says a lot.
EDIT: Also the tariffs in this country aren't good enough to convince people to splash out on a solar panel, traditional heating and electricity supply is currently far cheaper.
EDIT: Also the tariffs in this country aren't good enough to convince people to splash out on a solar panel, traditional heating and electricity supply is currently far cheaper.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
and your point is?
at some point it will be 1 barrel to get 1 barrel out...
It's unhealthy to rely on oil so much, we need a proper mix of energy sources...
tidal, solar, wind, nuclear, oil, gas, biofuel etc etc
Last edited:
And what are you going to use to heat the water? Electricity or a fossil fuel......and I imagine using electricity would be no more efficient than electrolysis so you're back to using gas/oil to produce a fuel to replace oil....
Obviously if renewable/nuclear energy became our main power generation source this could change things.
Would be interesting to see what is more efficient, using gas power stations to produce electricity to run electric cars, or using gas to heat water to produce hydrogen to power fuel cell cars.
At moment I'd say electric cars would be more efficient overall due to the large cost in storing and transporting hydrogen.
How quickly do you think this natural process occurs compared to extraction rate?
The only problem with hydrogen isn't the catalyst at all. If anything storing and transporting it is just as big if not bigger problem.
lol at the 2 different conversations happening in the one thread.
One, the issue in hand about petrol / oil running out or not, and possible alternatives etc.
Two, the anti 4x4 chat, people slating the concept of them being used by people that don't off road.
My 2p:
As Fox said, oil won't run out. We won't be trying to get at it when there is less of it left as the costs wouldn't justify this. Simple.
The 4x4 chat. I'm tempted to get a 4x4 for the winter up here, there is no chance my 335i is going to get around if the winter is anything like last year, so a cheap runaround is on the cards. This makes sense to ME. I've worked for my cash, I want to keep my main car in good nick and not get stuck or stack it when the weather gets pish. Yes, I could have bought a sensible main car instead, but I WANTED to buy what I did. I find it bizzare that people are passing judgement on people's car choice
One, the issue in hand about petrol / oil running out or not, and possible alternatives etc.
Two, the anti 4x4 chat, people slating the concept of them being used by people that don't off road.
My 2p:
As Fox said, oil won't run out. We won't be trying to get at it when there is less of it left as the costs wouldn't justify this. Simple.
The 4x4 chat. I'm tempted to get a 4x4 for the winter up here, there is no chance my 335i is going to get around if the winter is anything like last year, so a cheap runaround is on the cards. This makes sense to ME. I've worked for my cash, I want to keep my main car in good nick and not get stuck or stack it when the weather gets pish. Yes, I could have bought a sensible main car instead, but I WANTED to buy what I did. I find it bizzare that people are passing judgement on people's car choice
Nice reply. I did say it was unlikely, but my point was to try and question and possibly debunk this widespread idea that "solar power in the UK is a waste of time". Clearly, it is possible, but it require a really good way of storing energy (compressed air? capacitors?) and some few percent of UK land. It's an easy decision in my opinion - imagine being totally solar powered at the cost of a few percent of land? Incredible.
I included 10% efficiency in the calculation which is low even by cheap PV standards, so not "killer expensive panels".
At the very least, they should be on all rooftops and reduce household demand considerably, as AcidHell2 says.
I've worked for my cash, I want to keep my main car in good nick and not get stuck or stack it when the weather gets pish. Yes, I could have bought a sensible main car instead, but I WANTED to buy what I did. I find it bizzare that people are passing judgement on people's car choice
Indeed, it's the same as when people are discussing expensive watches on here... people slate them for spending so much on a watch, but if that's what you want to spend your money on then why not? It reeks of jealousy.
May I ask where you live? You make it sound as though there is a proportion of land just sitting around not doing anything which we might as well make use of.
I agree they should be on roofs, but that again brings up a whole host of new issues, older roofs not being suitable, who is going to pay for them, etc.
Each to their own and all that jazz! No I don't, it might be prime land. I know 3-5% of the land area covered in panels would look very different, but entirely renewable energy and complete energy security would be worth it, IMO.
To get some idea of the areas involved I made this:
The yellow spot is approx. 11,574 square km, or the figure I came up with above multiplied by 3 to allow for access roads etc. That spot could probably be spread out throughout the country (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) without impacting anyone too badly.
This is all just for the sake of argument. I know very well it's "impossible in practice".
To get some idea of the areas involved I made this:
The yellow spot is approx. 11,574 square km, or the figure I came up with above multiplied by 3 to allow for access roads etc. That spot could probably be spread out throughout the country (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) without impacting anyone too badly.
That is a big area. There is no way it could be spread throughout the country without impacting anyone too badly. No part of the countryside is empty space that no-one cares about, a lot of people from the city don't realise this.
Have you seen how much fuss is kicked up about wind-farms? What % of the UK do they currently cover?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,396
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
A lot of the fuss about wind farms is the same as every other thing that people get upset about, they dont want to change, but they dont want "negative" stuff on their doorstep.
The vast majority of people seem to be now be coming round to controlling energy usage a bit more, but most wouldnt want to see big areas of solar panels, wind farms on their doorstep, refuse buring facilities down the road, limits on gas guzzling vehicles etc etc They only want the ones that suit them, so drive a 1.1 litre fiesta, demand 4x4s and other higher consumption vehicles are the issue etc etc
Its really about whats more important to us longer term, forget the looking pretty nature areas and use them for power generation or look for draconian energy limits and keep the countryside. A bit simplified but those are the sorts of decision we face longer term, unless we make a major breakthrough on technologies. But one of the things in our favour is that the vast majority of energy reduction and efficiency has only been recent, I am sure theres a lot of easy and quick wins to come yet.
Not many years ago BMWs and mercs were terrible for fuel consumption but they are now massively better, particularly BMW.
It's only recently become viable, so to already be up to. 2% is a massive achievement and shows the complete opposite to what you say. It's not just solar they are investing in, they are investing in other renewables and are now up to 17% renewables. There economy is going to annihilate us and other countries in the coming decades unless we catch up and soon. Not only will their energy prices be stable. They have the expertise and economy to sell to other countries.
As is the tariffs. Pv cells will make you a considerable profit, far more than a savings accounts. But you need the money up front.
PV Cells are coming forward in leaps and bounds. Current commercially avilable panels are unto 13%, with research panels upto43% and some expected to cost less than half the price of current generation.
Also you don't need solar to replace all energy. It needs to make a significant dent, as does wind, nuclear and other forms.
But then you seem to be one of those people who want a one fix solution that can be made over night. That's not possible, never. Has been and be never will be. Do you think the switch to oil fuels was over night and easy?
Germany's new plan, since. The Japan dissaster.
Renewable electricity - 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050
Renewable energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050
Energy efficiency - Cutting the national electrical consumption 50% below 2008 levels by 2050
Their first target as is the rest of the EU was 12% electrical by 2010, Germany not only achieved it but surpassed it, ending 2007 with 14%
Some Info on research and test projects of national grid energy storage and other projects in Germany.
http://www.gtai.com/homepage/industries/energy-efficiency-sector/energy-storage-industry/
Last edited:
My problem with 4x4 is for most people they are simply illogical cars :-
1) Pose a significant danger to other drivers/pedestrians/cyclists in collisions (if a cyclist gets hit by a 2 ton flat nose 4x4 they are in a world of trouble
2) Bad fuel economy due to the design:
- Usually at least 500kg heavier than a standard car + 4x4 drive train adds a large amount of weight, forces the use of a heavy engine to move the mass of car
- Poor aerodynamics due to the height, ruins fuel economy at higher speeds
3) Sheer mass of the car means that building them has a massive carbon footprint
4) Noise Pollution (all 4v4s seem to be seriously noisy due to the large capacity engines)
5) Not much more interior space than an estate or saloon
6) Watching incapable drivers trying to park the things
1) Pose a significant danger to other drivers/pedestrians/cyclists in collisions (if a cyclist gets hit by a 2 ton flat nose 4x4 they are in a world of trouble
2) Bad fuel economy due to the design:
- Usually at least 500kg heavier than a standard car + 4x4 drive train adds a large amount of weight, forces the use of a heavy engine to move the mass of car
- Poor aerodynamics due to the height, ruins fuel economy at higher speeds
3) Sheer mass of the car means that building them has a massive carbon footprint
4) Noise Pollution (all 4v4s seem to be seriously noisy due to the large capacity engines)
5) Not much more interior space than an estate or saloon
6) Watching incapable drivers trying to park the things
Solar Roads, for the win!
Simple, get a bike. What's the point going to the gym by a car honestly, stupid!.
Within 20 miles radius I go by bike I can even buy some decent amount of food with my big chrome bag so shopping isn't an issue either unless you have a big family.
Makes more sense to get a car if you have a family that you can share it with.
Same goes for buses, trains, tractors, bulldozers and any other vehicle. I think it's bad driving that's the problem, not the size of the vehicle.
[/quote]2) Bad fuel economy due to the design:
- Usually at least 500kg heavier than a standard car + 4x4 drive train adds a large amount of weight, forces the use of a heavy engine to move the mass of car
- Poor aerodynamics due to the height, ruins fuel economy at higher speeds
3) Sheer mass of the car means that building them has a massive carbon footprint
4) Noise Pollution (all 4v4s seem to be seriously noisy due to the large capacity engines)
5) Not much more interior space than an estate or saloon
6) Watching incapable drivers trying to park the things
And? Not everything has to be as efficient as possible, they have other benefits that their owners choose them for. A lot of the stuff we buy/consume do not have a logical basis but that does not mean we should ban them.