The demise of diesel!

[GrumpyGranddad]

Rather than comparing energy use and CO2 emissions country by country, a more useful measure is energy use and CO2 emissions per capita.

By that measure:
Iceland tops the list at #1;
USA #11
UK #41
China #62
Eritrea #158
For energy consumption.

Kuwait #1
US #14
China #51
UK #52
Burundi #158
For CO2 emissions by consumption.

Isn’t most, if not all, of Iceland’s energy from geothermal and hydro sources?

 

[Amarillo]

Isn’t most, if not all, of Iceland’s energy from geothermal and hydro sources?

Yes - If I recall correctly it tops the list for energy use because data centres are housed there because of cheap geothermal electricity, and less of a need for cooling due to its naturally cooler climate. More recently much energy has been used for Bitcoin mining.

I wonder if it would be economically viable for Iceland to export its cheap power?

 

[G3WRT]

Hi
With the governments new rules on the ban of new car sales of both petrol & diesel to start in 2030, what are peoples thoughts on buying a new California now, or in the next couple of years? Would you worry about further rules coming into force, bans for driving to certain places, resale values, higher fuel & taxes etc.
Would you delay purchase and wait for, hopefully a new electric version!
Interested to hear some thoughts on this topic.
Thanks for any replies.

I think the governments plan will not happen because it is impractical and really a wish from non scientist politicians. Also I suspect and hope hydrogen will be developed and we can use that in the existing engines and petrol garages. This will make far more sense. It is only the hype because of the industries need to sell electric that we are subject to. Hydrogen (probably ammonia NH4), will be the fuel to use = no pollution except water exhaust. Buy and enjoy.

 

[G3WRT]

Live for today and enjoy life….so much can change in 9 years including the PM who makes all the sound bites because he is told to without thinking through all the issues of his proposals….whoever takes over will have a different plan anyway there will be no power for cars when all the households take up the £7k proposal to contribute for changing your boilers to an air source heat pump ….goodness those wind turbine will be spinning so fast !!!!

Yes agreed. These politicians have three things in common, they do not understand any aspect of science, they do not last long, and could not organise a pxxx up in a brewery. e.g. Afghan today. Hydrogen is the way forward and even using our existing engines! with different injectors. Plus existing garage fuel stops instead of mega expensive charging stations that will entail plastering the country with more ugly and expensive power cables (which cannot be buried because of electrical losses).

 

[Frank Herrity]

A bit late to the party but here's my two pence worth. The Cali is my guilty pleasure, and like all guilty pleasures it will cost me:
- I expect more city centres to be no go areas for diesels.
- the Welsh Assembly has already declared a moratorium on new road building. If you want to get somewhere fast, expect to use a toll road (like much of Europe).
- despite wishful thinking, EV's are here to stay. Expect the number of petrol stations to diminish over time. Range anxiety? Luckily I can easily manage 600 miles in my Cali.
- in a few years I expect to be part of a fringe community, something like those who still used a horse and cart 100 years ago. luckily, I am picking up my new EV on Monday, so I won't feel completely left out.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

A bit late to the party but here's my two pence worth. The Cali is my guilty pleasure, and like all guilty pleasures it will cost me:
- I expect more city centres to be no go areas for diesels.
- the Welsh Assembly has already declared a moratorium on new road building. If you want to get somewhere fast, expect to use a toll road (like much of Europe).
- despite wishful thinking, EV's are here to stay. Expect the number of petrol stations to diminish over time. Range anxiety? Luckily I can easily manage 600 miles in my Cali.
- in a few years I expect to be part of a fringe community, something like those who still used a horse and cart 100 years ago. luckily, I am picking up my new EV on Monday, so I won't feel completely left out.

 

[willwander]

How many times. Hydrogen is not the future for cars. Yes burning hydrogen is pollution free, but making it is not. Brown, grey and blue hydrogen releases huge amounts of carbon. Even green hydrogen is an inefficient use of energy and you still end up with what is basically just a crappy battery.

 

[two-saabs]

Well I think that using a diesel Cali to go on holiday is better for the environment than taking a flight somewhere. Maybe we should be lobbing for a reduction in tax on campervans.
If everyone was to convert to electric heating, cooking and driving are we sure we have enough electricity to power all these items.

Better yes, but it's a scale, Cali better than flights, tent better than Cali...

 

[Cath&Stef]

I reckon whatever electric technology we can buy today will be considered "junk" by 2030 because the battery technology and especially the charging infrastructure is being developed at great pace.

Much is written about 'fast' charging stations that can recharge the battery from 20% to 80% in 15 minutes, but little is said about how much stress that places on the battery, to say nothing about the range impact. Lithium-Ion batts really hate being discharged to below about 20ish %. OK, you don't typically drive until your diesel tank is completely empty but you fill it to 100% and get 100% of the available range. In contrast, a fast recharge will give you only 80% of the already overly optimistic range stated by VW, further reduced because you recharge with 20ish% still in the battery. An advertised 300 mile range sounds less impressive if you only get to actually use 180 miles of it.

I happily invested in a new Transporter conversion in April and am loving it. I'm just back from a week's tour from Horsham to Exeter, then Padstow and return via Plymouth back on a single tank of fuel. If they made a hybrid Cali that uses has betterallows me to reduce emissions by having a driving electrically

From a climate perspective, the benefits of the 'go electric' argument sounds great but won't achieve the intended goals unless we use renewable/green energy in generation. In Europe, only France has CO2 clean energy, but theirs is nuclear and thus questionable for other reasons.

Lastly, there's already companies out there that 'electrify' older VW 'T'-series vans. I expect that if manufacturer's do not market affordable vehicles, conversion options will become quite popular. Scrapping a perfectly good vehicle to replace it with a new build isn't environmentally friendly either.

Who knows, maybe by then they'll even have a unified charging infrastructure which accepts the currency of the land, rather than a plethora of different cards and charging widely different tariffs for the same product.

 

[Peter Bucknell]

Hi
With the governments new rules on the ban of new car sales of both petrol & diesel to start in 2030, what are peoples thoughts on buying a new California now, or in the next couple of years? Would you worry about further rules coming into force, bans for driving to certain places, resale values, higher fuel & taxes etc.
Would you delay purchase and wait for, hopefully a new electric version!
Interested to hear some thoughts on this topic.
Thanks for any replies.

It will be a huge technical challenge for VW to design and build an electric version of the California by 2030 that has anything approaching the range of a diesel or petrol powered van. Added to this, we know there will be an ongoing capacity problem on the charging network as the number of electric car owners grows exponentially. Therefore, IMO in 2030, secondhand diesel Californias will command a price premium once new models are no longer available. The downside will be that they are likely to be taxed much more heavily than electric vehicles, probably through intelligent road charging. However, this is not likely to be a big deterrent, given that most campervan drivers only do a modest annual mileage, as for most it is their second vehicle. I would expect that many people will have a small electric car for their first vehicle and a diesel campervan as second vehicle. Anyone who has the money to afford a luxury vehicle like a California will likely not bother too much about the extra tax payable.

 

[Czmitche]

We have a 2 year old Cali, a Kia Soul EV and a Mazda MX-5. We use the Soul as much as possible so that we minimise our CO2 and our particulate pollution. Diesels are being banned from city centres because they degrade air quality and kill people - not such a problem in the areas people tend to go camping. The Kia has 250-280 miles of range and therefore range anxiety is not a thing for vast majority of journeys. We can recharge from 20 to 80% in 30mins - which we need to do every 3 hours or so - we make similar stops in the van to go to toilet, stretch legs etc so do not see a big difference. Fast chargers on motorways are typically 40p per kWh not 70p (this is Ionity 350kWh chargers only and if you pay a monthly subscription of £11 the price drops to 23p). We bought the smaller engine MX-5 because it does 50mpg combined and is just as much fun as a more powerful convertible but less damaging to the environment. Apparently the production of EVs has decimated the world with dirty cobalt mines and lakes of black waste - if you look hard enough you will find what you want to find. Batteries are made once and then last 10 years - ICE cars continuously need fossil fuel and the production of each litre causes pollution/destruction in terms of wrecking the wilderness areas containing untapped reserves, spillages in transport, fumes from production and fumes/co2 in use. The choices are there and you can make a difference to reduce your impact and still have fun or you can shrug your shoulders and say that you are waiting for technology to catch up so you can carry on doing everything you are doing today i.e. driving huge SUVs, powerful sports cars, or even camper vans as everyday transport. And the argument ‘what difference can I make on my own’ is frankly pathetic - if people invest in the alternatives then their cost goes down. 15-20 years ago many Pooh poohed wind and solar as unviable fads - now they are a fraction of the price they were and a key part of our infrastructure. This then enables the UK to say to other countries that alternatives are possible and they work. Polluters like Russia, USA, Germany and China have all been in the news this years with catastrophic and expensive floods, fires etc so they are increasingly open to alternatives. So in short buy your camper and enjoy it but accept that it is not that good for the environment and use it responsibly/accept the restrictions on using them in city centres.

 

[two-saabs]

We have a 2 year old Cali, a Kia Soul EV and a Mazda MX-5. We use the Soul as much as possible so that we minimise our CO2 and our particulate pollution. Diesels are being banned from city centres because they degrade air quality and kill people - not such a problem in the areas people tend to go camping. The Kia has 250-280 miles of range and therefore range anxiety is not a thing for vast majority of journeys. We can recharge from 20 to 80% in 30mins - which we need to do every 3 hours or so - we make similar stops in the van to go to toilet, stretch legs etc so do not see a big difference. Fast chargers on motorways are typically 40p per kWh not 70p (this is Ionity 350kWh chargers only and if you pay a monthly subscription of £11 the price drops to 23p). We bought the smaller engine MX-5 because it does 50mpg combined and is just as much fun as a more powerful convertible but less damaging to the environment. Apparently the production of EVs has decimated the world with dirty cobalt mines and lakes of black waste - if you look hard enough you will find what you want to find. Batteries are made once and then last 10 years - ICE cars continuously need fossil fuel and the production of each litre causes pollution/destruction in terms of wrecking the wilderness areas containing untapped reserves, spillages in transport, fumes from production and fumes/co2 in use. The choices are there and you can make a difference to reduce your impact and still have fun or you can shrug your shoulders and say that you are waiting for technology to catch up so you can carry on doing everything you are doing today i.e. driving huge SUVs, powerful sports cars, or even camper vans as everyday transport. And the argument ‘what difference can I make on my own’ is frankly pathetic - if people invest in the alternatives then their cost goes down. 15-20 years ago many Pooh poohed wind and solar as unviable fads - now they are a fraction of the price they were and a key part of our infrastructure. This then enables the UK to say to other countries that alternatives are possible and they work. Polluters like Russia, USA, Germany and China have all been in the news this years with catastrophic and expensive floods, fires etc so they are increasingly open to alternatives. So in short buy your camper and enjoy it but accept that it is not that good for the environment and use it responsibly/accept the restrictions on using them in city centres.

Very smart summary

One small "defensive" point, I feel it's unfair to say its pathetic for people to ask what they can do on an individual level, (assuming it's not rhetorical), it's actually not that easy to know what is right especially as the ones who shout the loudest or pay the most are getting listened to.

No capital system or company would every advice to just walk more, use less, don't buy anything new

 

[Amarillo]

10 quadrillion (10,000,000,000,000,000) or 10^19 watts of power. Imagine having that under the bonnet of your California.

Fusion experiment breaks record, blasts out 10 quadrillion watts of power

Scientists used an unconventional method of creating nuclear fusion to yield a record-breaking burst of energy of more than 10 quadrillion watts, by firing intense beams of light from the world's largest lasers at a tiny pellet of hydrogen.

www.livescience.com

Unfortunately it takes ~1.42x10^19 watts of power to generate!

 

[Velma's Dad]

Very smart summary

One small "defensive" point, I feel it's unfair to say its pathetic for people to ask what they can do on an individual level, (assuming it's not rhetorical), it's actually not that easy to know what is right especially as the ones who shout the loudest or pay the most are getting listened to.

No capital system or company would every advice to just walk more, use less, don't buy anything new

Whenever the debate swings towards what individuals could/should be doing there's a risk of losing sight of the crucial importance of what our elected governments must do.

Of the approximately 50 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted globally each year, travel is about 16% and personal decisions about whether/how to travel aren't going to lower that dramatically, unless good alternatives exist and/or governments decide to price out unsustainable modes of transport through tax/incentives. Heating and cooling homes makes up 6% but the same thing again with those - we can't choose to use hydrogen (even if that is the answer) until it's piped to our homes.

On the other hand, manufacturing and farming together make up nearly half of global emissions. We could all consume less overall, but that's hardly realistic - choosing to (say) eat meat once or twice less often each week will help, but again not a massive swing.

The targets for net emissions within the coming twenty years has to be zero, achieved by determined and protracted government-led policy and implementation, not just a bit of a reduction by personal choice. It's going to require practically complete decarbonisation of power generation, probably very high taxation of unsustainable food production (ie meat) to lower demand dramatically, and carbon capture and storage both from point and diffuse sources to balance the residual emission that we can't easily reduce (production of concrete is a case in point - responsible for about 8% of global emissions and impossible to decarbonise because the chemical process of extracting calcium oxide from limestone emits CO2).

We need to elect governments that will commit to those policies and carry them through year after year, rather than pretending that the answer lies in personal buying choices.

 

[two-saabs]

Whenever the debate swings towards what individuals could/should be doing there's a risk of losing sight of the crucial importance of what our elected governments must do.

Of the approximately 50 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted globally each year, travel is about 16% and personal decisions about whether/how to travel aren't going to lower that dramatically, unless good alternatives exist and/or governments decide to price out unsustainable modes of transport through tax/incentives. Heating and cooling homes makes up 6% but the same thing again with those - we can't choose to use hydrogen (even if that is the answer) until it's piped to our homes.

On the other hand, manufacturing and farming together make up nearly half of global emissions. We could all consume less overall, but that's hardly realistic - choosing to (say) eat meat once or twice less often each week will help, but again not a massive swing.

The targets for net emissions within the coming twenty years has to be zero, achieved by determined and protracted government-led policy and implementation, not just a bit of a reduction by personal choice. It's going to require practically complete decarbonisation of power generation, probably very high taxation of unsustainable food production (ie meat) to lower demand dramatically, and carbon capture and storage both from point and diffuse sources to balance the residual emission that we can't easily reduce (production of concrete is a case in point - responsible for about 8% of global emissions and impossible to decarbonise because the chemical process of extracting calcium oxide from limestone emits CO2).

We need to elect governments that will commit to those policies and carry them through year after year, rather than pretending that the answer lies in personal buying choices.

Post of the day, exactly

 

[Amarillo]

Whenever the debate swings towards what individuals could/should be doing there's a risk of losing sight of the crucial importance of what our elected governments must do.

Of the approximately 50 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted globally each year, travel is about 16% and personal decisions about whether/how to travel aren't going to lower that dramatically, unless good alternatives exist and/or governments decide to price out unsustainable modes of transport through tax/incentives. Heating and cooling homes makes up 6% but the same thing again with those - we can't choose to use hydrogen (even if that is the answer) until it's piped to our homes.

On the other hand, manufacturing and farming together make up nearly half of global emissions. We could all consume less overall, but that's hardly realistic - choosing to (say) eat meat once or twice less often each week will help, but again not a massive swing.

The targets for net emissions within the coming twenty years has to be zero, achieved by determined and protracted government-led policy and implementation, not just a bit of a reduction by personal choice. It's going to require practically complete decarbonisation of power generation, probably very high taxation of unsustainable food production (ie meat) to lower demand dramatically, and carbon capture and storage both from point and diffuse sources to balance the residual emission that we can't easily reduce (production of concrete is a case in point - responsible for about 8% of global emissions and impossible to decarbonise because the chemical process of extracting calcium oxide from limestone emits CO2).

We need to elect governments that will commit to those policies and carry them through year after year, rather than pretending that the answer lies in personal buying choices.

I read somewhere that China is trying to switch from rice as a staple to potato as a staple as potato produces 25% lower CO2 than rice per calorie.

I haven’t been able to verify the truth of either the 25% claim, or that China is actively trying to wean its population off rice and onto potato.

 

[Czmitche]

Whenever the debate swings towards what individuals could/should be doing there's a risk of losing sight of the crucial importance of what our elected governments must do.

Of the approximately 50 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted globally each year, travel is about 16% and personal decisions about whether/how to travel aren't going to lower that dramatically, unless good alternatives exist and/or governments decide to price out unsustainable modes of transport through tax/incentives. Heating and cooling homes makes up 6% but the same thing again with those - we can't choose to use hydrogen (even if that is the answer) until it's piped to our homes.

On the other hand, manufacturing and farming together make up nearly half of global emissions. We could all consume less overall, but that's hardly realistic - choosing to (say) eat meat once or twice less often each week will help, but again not a massive swing.

The targets for net emissions within the coming twenty years has to be zero, achieved by determined and protracted government-led policy and implementation, not just a bit of a reduction by personal choice. It's going to require practically complete decarbonisation of power generation, probably very high taxation of unsustainable food production (ie meat) to lower demand dramatically, and carbon capture and storage both from point and diffuse sources to balance the residual emission that we can't easily reduce (production of concrete is a case in point - responsible for about 8% of global emissions and impossible to decarbonise because the chemical process of extracting calcium oxide from limestone emits CO2).

We need to elect governments that will commit to those policies and carry them through year after year, rather than pretending that the answer lies in personal buying choices.

Individuals vote in governments. People need to get educated in the facts as opposed to listening to convenient myths that justify doing nothing - once educated they can vote in the party/parties with the imagination and resolve to make the sweeping changes in policy/everyday lives required to slow down climate change and preserve some form of bearable long term existence for our species. If you think this is just hysteria consider that many major cities around the world have at some point been impacted by smoke from forest fires in the last year - even US east coast cities with smoke from the fires in the west.

 

[two-saabs]

Individuals vote in governments. People need to get educated in the facts as opposed to listening to convenient myths that justify doing nothing - once educated they can vote in the party/parties with the imagination and resolve to make the sweeping changes in policy/everyday lives required to slow down climate change and preserve some form of bearable long term existence for our species. If you think this is just hysteria consider that many major cities around the world have at some point been impacted by smoke from forest fires in the last year - even US east coast cities with smoke from the fires in the west.

In principle you're right, but in practice there are just as many uneducated voting as there are educated, and those tricksters in government put a lot of effort in feeding just the right narratives to fuel up the masses for their vote, so the whole system is questionable

 

[willwander]

In principle you're right, but in practice there are just as many uneducated voting as there are educated, and those tricksters in government put a lot of effort in feeding just the right narratives to fuel up the masses for their vote, so the whole system is questionable

Don’t sneer at the masses. “Uneducated” people have just as much right to vote as you do.

 

[two-saabs]

Don’t sneer at the masses. “Uneducated” people have just as much right to vote as you do.

Who says I'm educated? And who's sneering?

Don't make this personal or make assumptions, you don't know my background.

See the thread, the idea being "get educated" is flawed.

If someone is hustling and bustling living from hand to mouth, as millions in the UK are, fully in survival mode, it's not enough to expect them to "educate themselves" and vote for the right government. It's too much. And that is exactly what the governments thrive on.

 

[WelshGas]

The Government can say what they want, banning IC cars or Gas Boilers in the future, whatever, because they won’t be around or a different Party will be in power when the Crunch comes.
Its the same in virtually every country. There is no responsibility longterm. And this is a long term problem.

 

[two-saabs]

Who says I'm educated? And who's sneering?

Don't make this personal or make assumptions, you don't know my background.

See the thread, the idea being "get educated" is flawed.

If someone is hustling and bustling living from hand to mouth, as millions in the UK are, fully in survival mode, it's not enough to expect them to "educate themselves" and vote for the right government. It's too much. And that is exactly what the governments thrive on.

Need to move the conversation back to the topic in hand: fuel. These emotional and personal attacks are exhausting.

 

[WelshGas]

Portent of things to come. 260 miles in 21hrs 24 mins by Bus.

London council worker's bus odyssey sparks Twitter storm

Jo Kibble got from London to Morecambe in a day on public buses - "a great way to see the country".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[two-saabs]

Time waits for no (Cali lovin') man:

Future Cars: The 2022 Ford E-Transit Is an Electric Van, Man

The F-150 Lightning grabs headlines, but this van might have a bigger impact.

www.motortrend.com

 

[ArunAlec]

Portent of things to come. 260 miles in 21hrs 24 mins by Bus.

London council worker's bus odyssey sparks Twitter storm

Jo Kibble got from London to Morecambe in a day on public buses - "a great way to see the country".

www.bbc.co.uk

Wonder how long it took him to plan? Trying to find and decipher my local bus routes and times is a nightmare!