When will you sell your diesel?

ttaskmaster · 10 Apr 2017 at 10:48

Dis86 said:
Electric motors tend to have fairly poor torque outputs. Not all that good for 60 tonne tanks...

So why aren't we slapping the military with pollution fines?
Nothing to do with the huge piles of ammo they play with on a daily basis, I assume?

[TW]Fox said:
At this rate the government need do nothing as the general public have already convinced themselves all diesel is banned anyway!

Yup - According to a bloke at work, I'll be paying £20 a day for owning a diesel demon, plus £30 every time I take it into a city...!!!!!

joeyjojo said:
The question about electric military vehicles is a weird one (it's nothing to do with electric vs diesel, it's about logistics and refuelling)

Doesn't seem to be a problem getting all the other batteries out to people... well, no more than usual, anyway: Things that must go together to work cannot be shipped together... Murphy's Laws Of Combat.

Glanza · 10 Apr 2017 at 11:10

Selling mine on Friday hopefully as I've made the switch back to petrol.

HoneyBadger · 10 Apr 2017 at 12:14

Well the father in law gave us a 2004 2.7 TD. It's in good condition, I've tickled it a bit so we'll keep it as long as it lasts.

SC0TTRS · 10 Apr 2017 at 12:21

Sold mine last Oct and went back to petrol. Only because i'm not doing the mileage now.

Never really liked Diesel but it served it's purpose.

adolf hamster · 10 Apr 2017 at 14:50

ttaskmaster said:
So why aren't we slapping the military with pollution fines?
Nothing to do with the huge piles of ammo they play with on a daily basis, I assume?

its always the problem when talking to a general, when you say "you and who's army?".....

ttaskmaster · 10 Apr 2017 at 14:59

adolf hamster said:
its always the problem when talking to a general, when you say "you and who's army?".....

The main problem not being the army he may or may not command, so much as the assertion that he'd "give anything to be out there with [the boys], dodging the bullets instead of sitting here drinking this Chateau Lafite, and eating these filets mignons with sauce bearnaise!"

adolf hamster · 10 Apr 2017 at 15:15

ttaskmaster said:
The main problem not being the army he may or may not command, so much as the assertion that he'd "give anything to be out there with [the boys], dodging the bullets instead of sitting here drinking this Chateau Lafite, and eating these filets mignons with sauce bearnaise!"

I always preferred rat au van

ttaskmaster · 10 Apr 2017 at 15:38

adolf hamster said:
I always preferred rat au van

Just don't have the coffee...!!

adolf hamster · 10 Apr 2017 at 21:35

ttaskmaster said:
Just don't have the coffee...!!

Or the turnip surprise

Exactly the same shape.... As a thingy!!

platypus · 11 Apr 2017 at 09:16

[TW]Fox said:
The emissions from all internal combustion engines are proven to cause harm to human health. You'd need a bicycle to take your moral stance because even an EV is powered by electricity generated from power sources that are proven to harm human health.

Indeed, except it's far easier to employ exhaust capture at power generation plants than it is every single combustion engine.

Then again, because our government had the backbone and foresight to build a world leading Nuclear power infrastructure, our electricity generation is largely emission neutral (save the waste of course) anyway. Oh, wait..

[TW]Fox said:
Why does nobody care about the central heating systems responsible for a THIRD of Central London NOX emissions?

I think you have to start somewhere, and it's far easier to ban private cars in a place like London where the public transport is such as it is, than it is to target peoples heating.

Nasher · 11 Apr 2017 at 09:23

Nuclear power is just as bad, because you have to do something with all the radioactive waste. Which will stay radioactive for millions of years :/

platypus · 11 Apr 2017 at 09:24

Nasher said:
Nuclear power is just as bad, because you have to do something with all the radioactive waste. Which will stay radioactive for millions of years :/

Nuclear waste is certainly a problem, but it's manageable. Hell, if there was enough global will to go fully nuclear we could dump the stuff on the moon.

It's not the best solution. Hell I wish we were capable of generating enough power from floating tidal barriers, or solar farms that don't require taking up an entire country to produce enough power, but we can't. Nuclear is probably the best of the cleanest options we currently have available to us.

Nasher · 11 Apr 2017 at 09:27

That would still eventually become a problem and it would be even harder to deal with

platypus · 11 Apr 2017 at 09:40

Nasher said:
That would still eventually become a problem and it would be even harder to deal with

Oh I know, but out of sight out of mind

. You never know, we might come up with a better solution for nuclear waste in the interim.

ttaskmaster · 11 Apr 2017 at 10:07

Nasher said:
Nuclear power is just as bad, because you have to do something with all the radioactive waste. Which will stay radioactive for millions of years :/

Supposedly Thorium waste would give off less radiation than that to which you're currently exposed on a daily basis from all the junk in your own home... It will be several thousand years before it starts to be a concern.

Nasher · 11 Apr 2017 at 10:45

Thorium lets off alpha radiation, which is easy to shield. But it can still be harmful in useful amounts.

Orionaut · 11 Apr 2017 at 13:28

Nasher said:
Nuclear power is just as bad, because you have to do something with all the radioactive waste. Which will stay radioactive for millions of years :/

Actually, If you dig up the uranium and process it through nuclear reactors, the total amount of radioactivity in the enviroment goes down...

adolf hamster · 11 Apr 2017 at 13:28

Nasher said:
Nuclear power is just as bad, because you have to do something with all the radioactive waste. Which will stay radioactive for millions of years :/

i take the theory why don't we employ places like 3 mile island, or chernobyl for this? areas that are already pretty screwed in terms of radiation.

Orionaut · 11 Apr 2017 at 14:06

adolf hamster said:
i take the theory why don't we employ places like 3 mile island, or chernobyl for this? areas that are already pretty screwed in terms of radiation.

I always reckoned that TEPCo has missed a trick at Fukushima. It isn't just nuclear plants that could be sited there, they could site other "Bad neighbours" like chemical plants, Oil refineries, Metal smelters and so on.

Except for highly specific hotspots (which are easily detectable and therefore easily avoided) the radiation levels within the "Exclusion Zone" are no higher than they are anywhere else. It would be a perfect site for a large mega-industrial estate with no NIMBYS to worry about.

(And TMI was never a significant problem outside of the containment vessel. It did its job and did it well. There was a temporary evacuation but everybody returned home within 3 weeks)

Bear · 11 Apr 2017 at 19:52

ttaskmaster said:
Supposedly Thorium waste would give off less radiation than that to which you're currently exposed on a daily basis from all the junk in your own home... It will be several thousand years before it starts to be a concern.

You can use standard nuclear waste to start the reaction in a thorium reactor so you can end up using it up