Peter wrote:
No other country has so much nuclear power, and wind power does almost nothing for the wider picture of high speed electric trains which use an awesome amount of power. 16MW is a lot more than the 3MW from a wind turbine
Good job we have more than one wind turbine, then! We have enough that on average they provide 20% of the UK’s power demand. Electric trains don’t continuously use 16MW either, it’s only in the acceleration phase (and the new ones use regenerative braking when slowing).
Right now as we speak low carbon electricity sources (nuclear and renewable) are producing about 12GW of power in the UK.
Peter wrote:
If a country produces say 46% via renewables, then (when making the CO2 argument) you first need to consider the CO2 generated in the manufacture and maintenance of these (which is considerable, and wind turbines specifically have maintenance issues which are constantly being swept under the carpet, with many having to be scrapped after just 5 years)
If they do then those issues are fairly minor. Much of these “maintenance issues” are often things brought up from the 1970s.
Wind turbines have a great EROI (energy returned on invested). Typical experience on modern wind farms is a wind turbine will have an EROI of around 20 on average (the larger the wind turbine, the better the EROI). Nuclear has an average EROI of about 15, coal about 8, photovoltaic about 6. In windy places like Morecambe Bay the EROI of a turbine will exceed 30 which is better than the EROI of oil in many parts of the world (and of course unlike the wind turbine, the oil extracted will contribute to CO2 emissions).
Airborne_Again wrote:
We all know that you have a strong dislike of “the left”. Well, I have a strong dislike of conservatism, but I don’t feel the necessity of constantly pointing that out. This is an aviation forum after all.
I have a strong dislike of people who mislead others about their real goals, be them left, right, conservative or progressive, it does not matter.
When I see obvious contradictions between communicated goals but actions leading to a different goal, I am questioning the motivation of those people.
It is by far not a perogative of the so called Left to lie about their goals, conservatives can do the same and have done so in recent times quite massively. Within e.g the Covid situation, the liers and manipulators were predominantly conservative…. and my opinion of those people is well known I think.
Looking back in the beginning of the green movement, originally I give them the benefit that most of them were honestly concerned and had the goals to communicate their misgivings. I think where things got troublesome is when the existing political forces tried to woe them into their own program and unfortunately the radical left won.
Consequently, there is a unholy conflict between conservatives and the economy who fear about their future against greens who wish to transform that economy and the socialists who wish to change society from capitalism to socialism. IMHO, the technological advance needed to comply with the formulated goals e.g. of the Paris agreement are hampered by this conflict.
Personally if I want something done, I rather go to someone who can actually do it and try to convince him to cooperate with me rather than moaning to philosophers who will nod enthusiastically but actually want to shut down the people who can do it.
The aviation context is obvious: As GA representatives we have since ever been regarded as rich, privileged and therefore targeted by the Left. Consequently, when the green movement came on board, their take is to abandon aviation altogether. We do have an unholy alliance here which is fighting aviation.
I believe none of us is against improving the environment, but it should be done in a way to benefit people and environment alike, not in a way to misuse climate change and other environmental issues to enforce a change of society.
Peter wrote:
There is a lot of disingenuity used in promoting “green” issues; the reality is more complicated,
A lot of the disingenuity is in pushing a new and thinly-disguised form of consumer capitalism dressed up as saving the planet.
For instance, the constant messaging that what you really need to do to help the planet is spend 30k+ on a brand-new electric car.
This message ignores the more complex (and less profitable) reality that nearly all of the environmental cost associated with a car comes from its manufacture and its end-of-life disposal. The single best thing you can do for the planet, car-wise, is to keep your existing car maintained – extending its life as far as is economically reasonable – and refrain from buying a new one. Funnily enough this is also the cheapest way to run a car, so I guess you can see why it’s also the least profitable for industry.
It’s true that we’ve completely screwed up the railways, but that was the profit motive once again. Even before they were privatised, Britain’s railways were hacked to a fraction of their former extent in the 1960s, simply because of an ethos that a line which wasn’t individually profitable (by whatever contrived measure the guy appointed by a politican who made his fortune building roads cooked up) must be closed. As with airports, airspace and ATC it was a case of considering it purely a business and not as national infrastructure.
“This message ignores the more complex (and less profitable) reality that nearly all of the environmental cost associated with a car comes from its manufacture and its end-of-life disposal. The single best thing you can do for the planet, car-wise, is to keep your existing car maintained – extending its life as far as is economically reasonable – and refrain from buying a new one. Funnily enough this is also the cheapest way to run a car, so I guess you can see why it’s also the least profitable for industry.”
I don’t often agree with @Graham but on this I think he is bang on:))
A recent law in France makes it mandatory for manufacturers to make sure that it is always possible to repair their products for a period of 10 years. The idea is to try and get away from the throw away society. But culturally speaking, will that work in other countries, eg the UK which although having a fantastic classic car scene also, speaking anectdotally from my visits, would appear to have more latest model expensive cars on their roads than any other country.
Keeping cars for ages is my approach too. Many advantages, including the fact that you don’t have to worry about how much to sell it for – because you won’t get anything for it anyway 
Second the opinion that cars should be run as long as possible. Currently using my wife’s 12 year old Skoda Fabia to get to work. If it ever bites the dust (it only has run 55.000 km so far), I’d like to replace it with a BEV, as the usage profile corresponds perfectly (mostly short-range). We have a 2016 VW Touran as “main” family car, which can comfortably fit in the children and us plus baggage. I really wish a SEP existed which had the same comfortable interior and carrying capacity, but there is none which fulfills these criteria…
Cherokee 6 is what you want.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I have a strong dislike of people who mislead others about their real goals, be them left, right, conservative or progressive, it does not matter.When I see obvious contradictions between communicated goals but actions leading to a different goal, I am questioning the motivation of those people.
You mean like GA pilots always swaggering about the economic importance of GA, how many jobs are allegedly created/secured, how important it is to maintain a public infrastructure, etc. when all what they really mean is “I want to fly, you have to live with the noise and omissions I create and I believe it’s part of my fundamental human rights to pursue this hobby”?
Agree to that!
Graham wrote:
This message ignores the more complex (and less profitable) reality that nearly all of the environmental cost associated with a car comes from its manufacture and its end-of-life disposal. The single best thing you can do for the planet, car-wise, is to
This message ignores the more complex reality ( ;-) ) that there is no such thing as “environment protection”, etc.
If the target function is “global lifetime CO2 emission”, driving your old car as long as possible is in many cases right, but not always (a modern 4l/100km diesel will catch up with a old 8l/100km super plus car in about 10 years in total emission).
If the target on the completely other end of the spectrum is global NOx emissions, a new (and electric) car is almost leading from day one. If the target is local particle emission, there is not even a competition.
How do you value the water scarcity in Latam against the risk of an oil spill in Alaska? How the risk of a nuclear incident against the constant CO2 emission of a fossil power plant?
Unfortunately every single technology is far away from being optimal in all aspects of what we call “environment protection”. Depending on what is more important at a certain time at a certain location, you will end up with another “least bad technology”
