Morris Minor Owners Club

If everyone with two cars or who never drove more than 40 miles to work used an EV for the school run or local commuting, then Bristol would halve its carbon footprint overnight[...]

Yes, becuase the electricity for vehicles is brough here from the magic electric grows on trees fairy world, by pixies...

And a further yes, this is Multiphonniks' banana car, she also has to be converted to EV Minor called Hebe

I seem to recall hearing from one of my uni tutors back in the day that electric vehicles produced 4 times as much pollution as a "regular car" but because that pollution was moved geographically away from the car (ie, at the power station) people see them as clean.

Incidentally, does that mean Hebe is all fully electrified now?

Well, I think Hebe is very green at the moment, and progress is slow

Dan_Harris wrote:I seem to recall hearing from one of my uni tutors back in the day that electric vehicles produced 4 times as much pollution as a "regular car" but because that pollution was moved geographically away from the car (ie, at the power station) people see them as clean.

It's nowhere near that bad because a power station is way more efficient than thousands of little internal combustion engines. Even better would be to replace the fossil fuelled power stations with nuclear and renewables.

It's nowhere near that bad because a power station is way more efficient than thousands of little internal combustion engines.

A common misconception
By the time you have the additional power losses in transmission, then major losses when charging and a battery compared to the available power output, plus the losses in the motors etc... the efficiency of the 'powerstation' has little to do with the overall innefficiency.
Sadly, despite having probably more renewable energy potential in this country than we could ever need, we make electricity by burning fossil fuel like it was going out of fashion

As for the 'low cost' of running an electric vehicle - the current proposals for road pricing will probably help to kill of the electric vehicle industry before it gets going.

By the time you have the additional power losses in transmission, then major losses when charging and a battery compared to the available power output, plus the losses in the motors etc... the efficiency of the 'powerstation' has little to do with the overall innefficiency.

I agree, and don't forget the environmental impact of the chemicals used to make, and eventually dispose of all those batteries. They don't grow on trees either, and a lot of them are more toxic than most people realise.

I have yet to see any information about what the service life of the batteris in these lectric or hybrid vehicles is, and who pays for the disposal of the old set and the cost of the new set new set when they expire?

Well, to answer a few issues. The lifespan on the batteries is about 5-7 years, for most of these cars. They're apparently highly recycleable, although I've not taken a great deal of interest in that side of it.

The power for Nikki's car comes entirely from green energy, they pay extra and it *is* green. Solar / Wind / Hydro only.

I'm currently trying to sort out an electric vehicle for my mum, it's circa 1976 and so is probably long life, like the minor, but without the carbon footprint caused by burning petrol.

Don't get me wrong, electric cars aren't the whole and entire answer, but they are probably part of it, and can be a lot cleaner than a petrol car can *ever* be. And to be honest, for a lot of people they really *are* ideally suited to the kinds of driving they do, which is the worst kinds of driving. That stop-start-don't even get the car-warmed up commute through cities and towns... The kind that return the worst fuel consumption figures and which make our cities such lousy places to breathe.

Whilst it's easy to say "oh, well, all that extra power will come from coal powerstations" or "any improvement we make will disappear in the effects of pollution from china" (both common arguments), at least it's an attempt to make a change. And it's easier to clean up power generation than it is to clean up millions of petrol engines.

Personally, I think that long life plug-in-hybrids which run on biofuels are probably the real way forward. They have the potential to be carbon neutral, more or less. But then I'm a greenie, so you have to expect such things from me.

I really like the idea of electric cars, I agree that they don't offer much of an environmental or practical advantage (unless you regularly pay congestion charging) , but with the constant advances in electric motor and especially energy storage (hydrogen fuel cells / batteries) technologies, their efficiency will only improve. I feel its only through their integration now, will alternative power vehicles be more readily accepted later when they can offer significant environmental advantages.

On a different note, I was thinking about setting up my old dynamo / regulator and a few old (but still functioning) batteries to generate electricity from the wind.... Just need to design some blades.. It will hopefully offset the 2L twin-cam i would like to put in my car...

Pyoor_Kate wrote:Personally, I think that long life plug-in-hybrids which run on biofuels are probably the real way forward. They have the potential to be carbon neutral, more or less. But then I'm a greenie, so you have to expect such things from me.

I am of the same opinion Kate, its either got to be biofuel or Hydrogen combustion.....

Hydrogen combustion.....

again - there's a lot of missconception. With current technoilogy Hydrogen isn't a fuel source They use far more energy to create the hydrogen than the fuel produces when used.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti electric (or any new technology) but until we stop using fossil fuels for power generation it will be a dirty energy (and as all statistics show, Houses are responsible for more pollution than cars! )

I probably could mention the free bio fuel I've got for the landy, although I'm supposed to pay tax on it - will have to sort that out at some point....

they pay extra and it *is* green. Solar / Wind / Hydro only.

Cool

Renewable energy would be great, but sadly I expect we'll get nuclear.

I feel I ought to try to redress the balance of this cosy "green" coterie.

Having watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" recently, I'm afraid I am more convinced than ever that man-made global warming is pure fiction, and that CO2 is not a cause of global warming. It is an effect.

The so-called link between rises in CO2 and global temperature actually shows that the temperature rises first, then the CO2, not the other way around.

Human input to the global levels of CO2 are minuscule, and insufficient to affect the global weather processes.

Also, where the temperature is rising, it is doing so at the surface, not in the atmosphere where you'd expect it if "greenhouse gases" were the cause of the heating.

The most likely cause of the heating we appear to be experiencing is increased solar activity as part of a natural cycle that has been going on for eons, way before man ever made his entrance.

That's where all the heat on earth comes from, either directly as sunlight, or in the fossil fuels or wave or wind power generated from its effects.

I'm afraid man-made global warming is only a non-thinking person's justification for huge tax increases and major social engineering on a scale not seen since communism collapsed in the eastern bloc.

Well I didn't watch the TV programme, I just heard an opinion of it on "The Now Show" on Radio 4 (probably Marcus Brigstock's, he's known for opinions ). I probably would have shouted at the TV if I had watched it. I expect there's some poor science on both sides of the debate but I have to take issue on one point:

Also, where the temperature is rising, it is doing so at the surface, not in the atmosphere where you'd expect it if "greenhouse gases" were the cause of the heating.

I had double glazing fitted and it wasn't the windows that got warmer, it was the interior of the house!

EDITED AFTER I CALMED DOWN. Removed some possibly unhelpful comments.

Axolotl wrote:The most likely cause of the heating we appear to be experiencing is increased solar activity as part of a natural cycle that has been going on for eons, way before man ever made his entrance.

Ahh, the "it's not our fault so we don't have do do anything" argument.

The earth is undeniably warming. Partly naturally, as we leave the last ice-age. The problem is that the rate of increase is happening greater than it has been before, and the broad scientific consensus says that's the bit we're responsible for. Agreed, a lot of theories have started off with little support, but the problem with this argument is what happens when we wait to see who's right. We can't afford to wait and then find out "Oops, they were right about CO2..."

The solar theory is not "the most likely", it's just an alternative that has much less support than the CO2 theory. The CO2 theory has an awful lot of evidence to support it, but of course you wouldn't have seen that in the documentary because teh director didn't want to show it.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with some of the tax measures that have been introduced - history shows that people's behaviour is most influenced by their pockets, but it's a very crude tool; some will never change and other will suffer disproportionately. What it requires is a collective change of view. We are the most powerful species on the planet, and the first in earth's history to influence the whole planet. As such we have a collective responsibility to the rest of the inhabitants to look after the place, and we're not doing a very good job. Why should I consume just because I can? Even if you think that manmade climate change is not happening, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to use less energy and other resources. Making as little impact as possible is just being a responsible citizen of the planet.

Alas, I have a feeling that if we have to rely on humanity's collective conscience then we're doomed. Please research the literature and make your own mind up based on real information provide by people who overwhelmingly just want to find out what's happening. You can discount any research sponsored by energy companies or evironmental pressure groups. For an eyeopener, read about the affects on ocean acidity and what that could do for/to us.

Blindly accepting that climate change it true is just as bad, to my mind. I've never blindly accepted anything in my life and I'm not about to start. I am a bright person, who actually walks around with my eyes open, marvelling at the world that I see and endeavouring to understand and know as much about it as possible. I have had a subscription to the world's leading popular science journal for ten years. But because I accept that man-made climate change is real I'm unthinking? Very few people think as much as I do.

Pretty much the response I'd expected.

You know what you think you know, I know what I think I know.

Neither of us will ever find out who is right in the long term, it is just too long.

Most of the so-called science behind this isn't science at all, it is guesswork.

I'd just rather not be taxed to kingdom come for a policy based on guesswork, that's all.

I refer you all to :

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

and

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf

If only we all thought as much as JimK, eh...

Axolotl wrote:You know what you think you know, I know what I think I know.

I don't know anything for certain. I know, absolutely, that the balance of currently known evidence says that our activity is accelerating any natural global climate change. I don't know if the theory is true or not, but I do know what the evidence seems to say. I'm always ready to change my opinion (to be otherwise wouldn't be intellectually honest) but at the moment it doesn't look like I need to.

Neither of us will ever find out who is right in the long term, it is just too long.

Except the that we have seen an acceleration of climate warming during the last 40 years. Another 40 years is within my predicted lifespan, and my son has perhaps 70 years. So you might not see it, but I might and my son is even more likely to.

Most of the so-called science behind this isn't science at all, it is guesswork.

But that's what science is! The scientific method consists of attempting to explain what we see by inventing theories that fit the available evidence. That's all scientists have ever done, and is indeed all they can ever do. To write it off as such misses the point of what scientific investigation is about.

It's actually pretty hard to do; imagine feeding a dictionary through a woodchipper then trying to reconstruct it using one word in ten thousand. That's the scale of what we're trying to do, but to dismiss it because of that is pretty misguided.
In short: It's guesswork, but it's very very good guesswork by some of the very cleverest people living.

I'd just rather not be taxed to kingdom come for a policy based on guesswork, that's all.

The work behind the theory that we're affecting the climate is some pretty good science (i.e. it has applied the scientific method well), just as good as the work that goes into studying new medicines. Personally I'm prepared to take the risk that the money I pay may not help, just in case it does. If you think that's odd, then consider this: You are given a pill by the doctor (a scientist, effectively). It may cause side-effects (virtually all drugs can), but the balance of evidence is that it will cure you. You pay for the prescription and take the pill.

Sounds reasonable? We all do that. Now consider: the pill is designed to save the planet from manmade climate change. The prescription charge is an increase in our taxes, flight costs, etc. The medical scientist is replaced by climate scientists. Otherwise nothing has changed. Why will you pay to take a drug which might cure your illness, but not take an action which might help the world you live in?

bigginger wrote:If only we all thought as much as JimK, eh...

Anything to contribute to the debate? If not then you've pretty much proved my point.

JimK wrote: The work behind the theory that we're affecting the climate is some pretty good science (i.e. it has applied the scientific method well), just as good as the work that goes into studying new medicines. Personally I'm prepared to take the risk that the money I pay may not help, just in case it does.

But what does paying extortionate levels of tax under the excuse of a green agenda help?

It doesn't reduce the number of cars, at best it might mean that a few more new cars are sold that are a little more "green". Though chances are it'll really mean more pollution from production as the car emissions issue is used as an excuse to sell more new and scrap more well before the end of their useable life.

It doesn't seem to put energy efficient bulbs in every home.

It doesn't go en masse towards helping the environment.

What it does seem to do is disappear into the bloated civil service and controversial war funds. People are beign taxed based on unproven and possibly shakey science, and the taxes are levied in a way that makes them hard to avoid with very little if any of the revenue going anywhere near projects to counter the damaging behaviour it was raised from.

Governments love the global warming scare as along with being an excellent fear mechanism for the populace, it gives them justification to raise their revenue. Manufacturers must be gleeful as they can flog you someothing that's 5% more efficient than your existing perfectly functional unit, and quite possibly increase the profit margin under the guise of eco friendliness.

There's a shedload of "green" that could be done, but the reality for the average person is more tax and little else. Where's the mandatory installation of solar heating panels in every new build, and retro fit to council/ social housing? Where's the busses running on algae as proposed over a decade ago?

The trouble with a government is it's concerned about being seen to do the right thing, and in recent times the people have been led to believe what the right thing is by a media that is manipulated as much as it manipulates. All a government wants is to stay in power and when ousted have enough in the bank to retire on, or a career in the lecture and after dinner speech circuit. Money in is the aim, not money out. And any truly green incentives (rather than penalties) will require cash flowing in the wrong direction to make the politiians happy.

JimK wrote: Anything to contribute to the debate? If not then you've pretty much proved my point.

...but it's VERY hard to see how you speciously claiming to think more than most people does that. Anyway, I know you like to play devil's advocate, so I'll leave you to it.