Climate Change thread

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Since you do not use aeroplanes you have an excuse for not knowing what you are talking about.

The Airlander airship, even when powered by four ruddy great 325BHP V8 turbocharged engines (as opposed to much less powerful electric motors) has a cruising speed of about 90mph. A Boeing 737 has a cruise speed of about 530mph, nearly 6X faster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_Airlander_10

 

So, a hop over from Manchester to Majorca would take about 16 hours as opposed to the current 2Hr 40min.

To Tenerife it'd be about 27 hours (compared to the present about 4Hr 30min)

To Australia it would be 135 Hrs  (that's five and a half days) as opposed to the present 23 hours. Each way obviously......

 

This is assuming it had the range to do these flights (on electric power I mean) and wasn't stopped from flying by the weather as its service  ceiling is only 20,000ft, a 737 is 41,000ft......

Oh well,  that's it then    -    Goodbye to your holidays then lad.

I did try to cheer thee up but I don't think it sits natural, thee being cheerful.

[trastrick]

4 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Oh well,  that's it then    -    Goodbye to your holidays then lad.

I did try to cheer thee up but I don't think it sits natural, thee being cheerful.of yoy

A World with travel privileges doled out by some jet setting elite. on the basis of "need", YOURS. not THEIRS ?

 

You can survive life without holidays, a car, travel if you have no job, and enough government dole to have shelter, food and clothing.

 

A World viewed only from the telly perspective of the Guardian /BBC crowd.

 

Doesn't sound like a "happy" life to me! Maybe North korea?     I can see why you "need" to spend so much time here.

 

Not even China goes for that life anymore!   They are born entrepreneurs, (capitalists) flooding the World with their people, products and services.

 

Including your comfy gear and the chip shop down the street.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by trastrick

[Chekhov]

10 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Oh well,  that's it then    -    Goodbye to your holidays then lad.

No it should be goodbye to Nett Zero at any cost, particularly as nobody has ever voted for it.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

No it should be goodbye to Nett Zero at any cost, particularly as nobody has ever voted for it.

Unfortunately,  you're on the losing side again    -    uncanny how you manage to do that.

I wonder if you suffer from a thing called  "bad Judgement"

 

Most of what they do was never voted for but they still do it.

DID YOU VOTE FOR THE IRAQ WAR ?

I would have voted against it if they had given me the chance.    -    They knew that so they didn't.

You've surely heard me complain many times about what they call democracy    -    Am I right or am I right ?

 

 

 

[trastrick]

2 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Unfortunately,  you're on the losing side again    -    uncanny how you manage to do that.

I wonder if you suffer from a thing called  "bad Judgement"

 

Most of what they do was never voted for but they still do it.

DID YOU VOTE FOR THE IRAQ WAR ?

I would have voted against it if they had given me the chance.    -    They knew that so they didn't.

You've surely heard me complain many times about what they call democracy    -    Am I right or am I right ?

 

 

 

Relax Orgy!

 

If you can so easily dismiss what folks "want", and side with the powers that be,  who decide what folks "need", you are in no danger of being wrong in today's U.K's political climate.

 

You've got what you "need" so you're all right Jack!

 

Like the politicians, you'll be long gone, before the bills come due!

 

Enjoy!

Edited June 10, 2023 by trastrick

[ads36]

On 10/06/2023 at 08:40, Chekhov said:

No it should be goodbye to Nett Zero at any cost, particularly as nobody has ever voted for it.

we're not pursuing "Net Zero at any cost"

 

we're occasionally talking vaguely about doing something, probably, at some point in the future, maybe.

 

'Net Zero At Any Cost' would look *very* different to our current trajectory.

 

(even the phrase 'net zero' is a flawed compromise, allowing us to largely carry on as we like)

 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by ads36

[Annie Bynnol]

 

  45% and increasing of current electrical power is being generated by polluting fossil/biomass fuel and with renewables unable to cope, Ratcliffe on Soar(at East Midlands Parkway) coal fired power station is being fired up because of the demands of air-conditioning and half of the the 'green' 1400 megawatt interconnector power link to Norway having failed.

  

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, ads36 said:

we're occasionally talking vaguely about doing something, probably, at some point in the future, maybe.

So this is not happening then ?

 

ZEV MANDATE: GOVERNMENT TELLS CAR MAKERS AT LEAST 22 PER CENT OF ALL NEW CARS SOLD SHOULD BE PURE-ELECTRIC BY 2024

However, manufacturers who cannot meet the targets will be allowed to purchase “excess ZEVM allowances” from rival car makers, with prices for these credits to be decided within the industry rather than dictated by the DfT. If that’s not possible to cover the non-compliance, car and van makers will be fined £15,000 per non-ZEV car and £18,000 per non-ZEV van registered.

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/zev-mandate-government-tells-car-makers-at-least-22-per-cent-of-all-new-cars-sold-should-be-pure-electric-by-2024/

 

On 10/06/2023 at 10:17, Organgrinder said:

Unfortunately,  you're on the losing side again    -    uncanny how you manage to do that.

Funny that, I cannot remember the last time I talked to anyone who said they were happy to be banned from flying abroad, and not allowed a cheap(ish) car or a warm house in winter.

Who are all these people who want that lot ?

Edited June 12, 2023 by Chekhov

[ads36]

26 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

So this is not happening then ?

 

ZEV MANDATE: GOVERNMENT TELLS CAR MAKERS AT LEAST 22 PER CENT OF ALL NEW CARS SOLD SHOULD BE PURE-ELECTRIC BY 2024

However, manufacturers who cannot meet the targets will be allowed to purchase “excess ZEVM allowances” from rival car makers, with prices for these credits to be decided within the industry rather than dictated by the DfT. If that’s not possible to cover the non-compliance, car and van makers will be fined £15,000 per non-ZEV car and £18,000 per non-ZEV van registered.

if we were actually committing to (your words) "Net Zero at any cost" we wouldn't include a provision for car manufacturers to buy their way out of it.

 

And why 22% ? - which sounds suspiciously like a number that's been picked because it's the one that the car manufacturers asked for.

 

We know we have to de-carbonise transport. "at any cost" would mean 100%, now, yesterday, immediately.

 

We're taking a few small steps, and they're all to be taken later. 

 

for goodness sake : "prices for these credits to be decided within the industry" - that's a total cop-out, what a pointless, toothless, inneffective directive.  Thankyou for proving my point.

Edited June 12, 2023 by ads36

[Chekhov]

3 minutes ago, ads36 said:

We're taking a few small steps, and they're all to be taken later. 

I absolutely 100% agree with this.

But, of course, that's why the polls, apparently, report that a majority are still in favour of Nett Zero.....