That is not our look out. You didnt explain the thread/topic or anything properly. You didnt even say what the advert actually said...you know, the important bit that makes your point actually make sense.
Renault Z.E. advert
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
That is not our look out. You didnt explain the thread/topic or anything properly. You didnt even say what the advert actually said...you know, the important bit that makes your point actually make sense.
I think the point is that many aspects of our lives were once not powered by electricity, and that now most things are. But if electricity had not been discovered/utilised that we would see those sort of miniature steam-punk style devices rather than electrical ones.
It wasn't implying that there ever was a steam-powered vending machine or a card-reader as that would be pretty stupid. It's an advertising concept they were trying to get across. And clearly failed in some cases.
It wasn't implying that there ever was a steam-powered vending machine or a card-reader as that would be pretty stupid. It's an advertising concept they were trying to get across. And clearly failed in some cases.
To be fair to the OP, in the advert it does actually say "You already switched to electricity for many things." Funny, I don't remember switching from my 2 stroke petrol powered PCto my fancy new electrical powered computer
Should have said something along the lines of "Electricity powers most of the devices in our lives, why not add one more to the list.
The new Renault Z.E"
not really as it doesn't say that you switched from petrol to electricity, it simply says that you switched to electricity...for example the electric shaver from the wet shave.....from towels to hairdryers......from windup toys to battery operated toys and so on......it is not specifically saying that you had a petrol shaver now you have a battery operated one......the images are there to show you the nature of the benefit of electricity, not to simply portray petrol operated devices.
The advert then asks why not change from petrol to electricity in your car...not that you have changed from petrol in other devices...
Last edited:
Actually crying with laughter at that. The Mrs is giving me funny looks.
First time I've heard that one - thanks!
I think the point is that many aspects of our lives were once not powered by electricity, and that now most things are. But if electricity had not been discovered/utilised that we would see those sort of miniature steam-punk style devices rather than electrical ones.
It wasn't implying that there ever was a steam-powered vending machine or a card-reader as that would be pretty stupid. It's an advertising concept they were trying to get across. And clearly failed in some cases.
exactly.....better worded that what I wrote.
This, what's the confusion.
As for power comes from power stations, which are ever increasingly from green sources.
And before someone brings up the zero emissions is a rubbish stat, as it's bound to come up. It really isn't.
Does the petrol figure include emissions for the locating, drilling, refining and transporting of petrol? Thought not.
If people are interest in the future read up on the EU 2020 and 2050 road map. Most countries are on target for green energy, we aren't
.
Last edited:
One can never tell these days.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 678
- Location
- UK
ALWAYS baffles me how students get into uni
This. I'm surrounded by idiots, but they've made it to 4th year. :S
If people are interest in the future read up on the EU 2020 and 2050 road map. Most countries are on target for green energy, we aren't
Ahem... England isnt. Scotland on the other hand
In all fairness though the emissions targets are heavily biased. "green" energy production is a token gesture at best and when you factor in the emissions, construction costs and waste for producing these new technologies then they are at best on par with clean fossil fuel technologies and in many cases worse...
Oh and way to miss the point OP
/Salsa
All of those are just myths.
There have been a number of studies looking at Wind farms in particular in countries such as Denmark and Holland which show wind power to actually increase fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 50% compared with clean gas power generation alone.
The materials and energy costs required to construct and connect wind farms, coupled with the unreliability and lack of suitable locations make them a lot less "green" than they look.
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/peter-lang-wind-power.pdf
http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
Thats before you look at the impacts of land clearence required to build onshore wind farms and environmental impacts on migratory birds/bats.
In the near term at least the emissions reductions will be comming from clean fossil fuel burning, in particular gas turbines. A nuclear reneaisance is likely to be our only hope of hitting the 2050 targets.
/Salsa
Last edited:
So why does it show the other devices as being petrol powered then?
It IS a stupid advert, and I agree with the OP's rant.
And many more that says the total opposite.
Original reports. Linked at bottom of site
http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html
The first report doesn't say they create more co2, just that due to instability you need back up. This is changing and will change significantly by 2050 with smart grids.
I bet the other two reports also ignore the upgrade to smarter grids and energy storage. Smart grids being implemented now and energy storage being researched.
Edit - the second report is entirely based on third report for co2 calculations.
That's also one form of renewable energy. We are implementing many. New houses have to have one form of renewable energy. Or will do shortly. PV solar heat or heat exchange is the easist.
We then have Scottish tidal trials.
And nuclear is pretty bad for co2, due to the colossal amount of concrete used in construction and decommissioning.
Unfortunately nuclears not going to happen in the scale we need, I wish it would. But I can't see it.
Original reports. Linked at bottom of site
http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html
The first report doesn't say they create more co2, just that due to instability you need back up. This is changing and will change significantly by 2050 with smart grids.
I bet the other two reports also ignore the upgrade to smarter grids and energy storage. Smart grids being implemented now and energy storage being researched.
Edit - the second report is entirely based on third report for co2 calculations.
That's also one form of renewable energy. We are implementing many. New houses have to have one form of renewable energy. Or will do shortly. PV solar heat or heat exchange is the easist.
We then have Scottish tidal trials.
And nuclear is pretty bad for co2, due to the colossal amount of concrete used in construction and decommissioning.
Unfortunately nuclears not going to happen in the scale we need, I wish it would. But I can't see it.
Last edited:
The whole green energy debate can and will rage on and there is no correct answer. Lots of information and data to back up both arguments.
Renewable sources cannot be touted as the magical solutions to our energy/emissions crisis.
For instance even were we to utilise all possible sources of renewable energy in the UK then we still would not cover the energy requirements of every person in the UK. When you start to factor in unsuitable locations, public opinion opposing wind farms etc then "green" enery looks very much like a token gesture in its current form.
This explains in more detail what I mean.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_103.shtml
A huge shift in consumption and production methods are required but I dont see any major policy changes which will bring this about anytime soon.
In the short term gas generation and cleaner fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, coupled with increased energy efficiency I think will still contribute more to emissions reductions than renewable generation.
When you look at nuclear power generation it actually compares pretty favourably with renewables with regards to emissions and production costs.
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf
Whether the government will actually have the balls to make a decision to replace fossil fuels with nuclear for base load generation remains to be seen. I think it is the most viable technology we have especially with new generations of reactors comming online soon promising better efficiency and cleaner safer production. However with the Fukushima accident shaking trust in nuclear power generation I have my doubts, despite how misplaced the fears over safety may be.
But I digress (not to mention strayed somewhat offtopic). Im not against renewable electricity generation I just dont accept that they are the magical solution to all our problems.
/Salsa
Last edited:
I massively disagree with those figures for renewables, but anyway as you say there's loads of data for each side.
On the political will. The coalition goverment appears to be pushing on, but only time will tell.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/...e-energy/2167-uk-renewable-energy-roadmap.pdf
Bet you wish you got one of those high powered petrol ones now?