Carryfast:
Captain Caveman 76:
There is one reason why we need to be looking at alternative power sources, there is only a finite amount of fossil fuel on the planet and one day we will run out.
I remember a good few years ago when fracking was first considered. It was discarded as being too expensive for what it yielded, now it’s considered essential to meet our energy needs.
Unfortunately, we will only seriously start looking at alternative energies when it becomes too expensive to continue with fossil fuels.
The issue in this case being that ‘electric’ isn’t an ‘alternative’ fuel source at least so long as it requires large scale if not majority fossil fuelled generation.While ‘renewables’ aren’t permanent IE the wind isn’t a reliable source of energy nor therefore is wave energy.While nuclear fuelled generation has the potential to turn the place into an uninhabitable wasteland including wrecking our agricultural capacity if/when it goes wrong.While at best just changing our dependence on oil to more expensive and rarer nuclear fissile materials like Uranium etc.
On that note fossil fuels have only two choices either they remain a cost effective fuel source or they run out.In the case of the former it’s in no one’s interests to price the fuel out of viable use and existence.While the latter won’t apply for many generations yet at which point that’s those new generation’s problem to sort out not ours.
To which the answer of our government is to close down the mining industry and go for expensive dangerous nuclear energy.Together with equally expensive pointless electric vehicles.What could possibly go wrong. 
Don’t get me started on nuclear energy. Outdated, expensive, inefficient , hazardous and produces a waste product our level of technology can’t cope with.
Leaving energy production problems to future generations is short sighted and selfish. I agree that renewables aren’t the solution to our energy needs, but until we start using less of the stuff, it’s the best we have at the moment. The cost of fossil fuel derived energy is only ever going to go up as the raw materials become scarcer and more expensive to retrieve.
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
Captain Caveman 76:
There is one reason why we need to be looking at alternative power sources, there is only a finite amount of fossil fuel on the planet and one day we will run out.
I remember a good few years ago when fracking was first considered. It was discarded as being too expensive for what it yielded, now it’s considered essential to meet our energy needs.
Unfortunately, we will only seriously start looking at alternative energies when it becomes too expensive to continue with fossil fuels.
The issue in this case being that ‘electric’ isn’t an ‘alternative’ fuel source at least so long as it requires large scale if not majority fossil fuelled generation.While ‘renewables’ aren’t permanent IE the wind isn’t a reliable source of energy nor therefore is wave energy.While nuclear fuelled generation has the potential to turn the place into an uninhabitable wasteland including wrecking our agricultural capacity if/when it goes wrong.While at best just changing our dependence on oil to more expensive and rarer nuclear fissile materials like Uranium etc.
On that note fossil fuels have only two choices either they remain a cost effective fuel source or they run out.In the case of the former it’s in no one’s interests to price the fuel out of viable use and existence.While the latter won’t apply for many generations yet at which point that’s those new generation’s problem to sort out not ours.
To which the answer of our government is to close down the mining industry and go for expensive dangerous nuclear energy.Together with equally expensive pointless electric vehicles.What could possibly go wrong.
Don’t get me started on nuclear energy. Outdated, expensive, inefficient , hazardous and produces a waste product our level of technology can’t cope with.
Leaving energy production problems to future generations is short sighted and selfish. I agree that renewables aren’t the solution to our energy needs, but until we start using less of the stuff, it’s the best we have at the moment. The cost of fossil fuel derived energy is only ever going to go up as the raw materials become scarcer and more expensive to retrieve.
Why is it considered as ‘selfish’ to let future generations sort out their own problems if/when fossil fuels eventually run out just as previous generations have sorted out theirs.IE whoever burns it all and when makes no difference and it will only need to be a problem that needs sorting at that point not before.As for fossil fuels going up in price as I said if they get too expensive the economy collapses and with it the sales of the producers as the Arabs found out.On that note there is no problem with supply or cost now or in the foreseeable future.If you don’t believe that then try heating your home with electricity instead of gas or oil or coal and find a cheaper way of fuelling a truck than the price of fossil fuels burnt directly in an ICE given an equal taxation regime. 
The problem in this case being a our corrupt zb wit government’s energy policies.Which have at best wasted loads of gas on electricity generation and at worse closed down our mining industry in favour of expensive dangerous nuclear energy and who are now trying to create a captive market for the electricity generators to pay for it.
Used an all electric truck on TK MAX contract with DHL.
For it to be really viable the battery weight needs to come down considerably and the recharge time also needs to come down.
The recharge time was up to 8 hrs that’s a full shift of down time so not really profitable.
The future will be moving to another fuel source not yet devised or something along the neuclar route .
Captain Caveman 76:
The biggest problem with electric vehicles is the range limit. I put my phone on its wireless charger the other day and had a thought, could you do that with electric cars? Since all you have to do to generate electricity is to pass a wire through a magnetic field, would it be possible to make new roads/upgrade existing ones with built in magnets. As the car cuts the magnetic field, it generates it’s own electricity and charges whilst it’s moving.
As ever, I doubt the drawback would be technological, but financial.
Cavey, your new name is now Lisa! 
For Urban delivery…
So now you’re not going to hear the lunatic working for Brakes, 3663 and P&H coming! 
Carryfast:
Why is it considered as ‘selfish’ to let future generations sort out their own problems if/when fossil fuels eventually run out just as previous generations have sorted out theirs.IE whoever burns it all and when makes no difference and it will only need to be a problem that needs sorting at that point not before.As for fossil fuels going up in price as I said if they get too expensive the economy collapses and with it the sales of the producers as the Arabs found out.On that note there is no problem with supply or cost now or in the foreseeable future.If you don’t believe that then try heating your home with electricity instead of gas or oil or coal and find a cheaper way of fuelling a truck than the price of fossil fuels burnt directly in an ICE given an equal taxation regime.
The problem in this case being a our corrupt zb wit government’s energy policies.Which have at best wasted loads of gas on electricity generation and at worse closed down our mining industry in favour of expensive dangerous nuclear energy and who are now trying to create a captive market for the electricity generators to pay for it.
It’s selfish because it’s our fault, we developed an energy hungry society without a long term sustainable strategy. If this situation is left to reach crisis point, it would become ridiculously expensive to resolve. Collapsing economies would be the least of our problems.
Evil8Beezle:
Cavey, your new name is now Lisa!
My favourite science joke!
Captain Caveman 76:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=omV97ZJvhlA
My favourite science joke!
LOL, you realise that that’s far too deep for most!
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
Why is it considered as ‘selfish’ to let future generations sort out their own problems if/when fossil fuels eventually run out just as previous generations have sorted out theirs.IE whoever burns it all and when makes no difference and it will only need to be a problem that needs sorting at that point not before.As for fossil fuels going up in price as I said if they get too expensive the economy collapses and with it the sales of the producers as the Arabs found out.On that note there is no problem with supply or cost now or in the foreseeable future.If you don’t believe that then try heating your home with electricity instead of gas or oil or coal and find a cheaper way of fuelling a truck than the price of fossil fuels burnt directly in an ICE given an equal taxation regime.
The problem in this case being a our corrupt zb wit government’s energy policies.Which have at best wasted loads of gas on electricity generation and at worse closed down our mining industry in favour of expensive dangerous nuclear energy and who are now trying to create a captive market for the electricity generators to pay for it.
It’s selfish because it’s our fault, we developed an energy hungry society without a long term sustainable strategy. If this situation is left to reach crisis point, it would become ridiculously expensive to resolve. Collapsing economies would be the least of our problems.
What’s ‘our fault’.It’s a source of energy that is/was historically used at a certain point in time and eventually it will inevitably run out.That’s not anyone’s ‘fault’ it’s just a fact and a case of human progress and necessity and in which case who cares when that point is.But what is certain is that it won’t be in the foreseeable future.On that note as I said exactly the same process will ensure that future generations will deal with their own problems just the same as previous ones did.‘When the time comes’ with no need for it to be done before.While by your logic we have to leave as much as possible of it in the ground and go back to the stone age just to delay that process of evolution. 
Ironically that might possibly even be the logic of many of those who are supporting nuclear while closing down the coal mines.IE let’s use an expensive dangerous source of energy that has the potential to poison the place out of existence.Just to leave a load of coal in the ground for generations way in the future instead of us to use. 
Its also not our fault that the worlds population is now beyond what is sustainable (increasing fossil fuel usage just one of the results to sustain what can’t be), yet the children those of us who haven’t caused it by being responsible are going to suffer just as much as those who have.
Fossil fuels running out is going to seem a minor irritation to what will come when food and water start to run short in borderless ungovernable mayhem.
Evil8Beezle:
Captain Caveman 76:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=omV97ZJvhlA
My favourite science joke!
LOL, you realise that that’s far too deep for most!
I’m sure they’ll Google it if they care that much!
Carryfast:
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
Why is it considered as ‘selfish’ to let future generations sort out their own problems if/when fossil fuels eventually run out just as previous generations have sorted out theirs.IE whoever burns it all and when makes no difference and it will only need to be a problem that needs sorting at that point not before.As for fossil fuels going up in price as I said if they get too expensive the economy collapses and with it the sales of the producers as the Arabs found out.On that note there is no problem with supply or cost now or in the foreseeable future.If you don’t believe that then try heating your home with electricity instead of gas or oil or coal and find a cheaper way of fuelling a truck than the price of fossil fuels burnt directly in an ICE given an equal taxation regime.
The problem in this case being a our corrupt zb wit government’s energy policies.Which have at best wasted loads of gas on electricity generation and at worse closed down our mining industry in favour of expensive dangerous nuclear energy and who are now trying to create a captive market for the electricity generators to pay for it.
It’s selfish because it’s our fault, we developed an energy hungry society without a long term sustainable strategy. If this situation is left to reach crisis point, it would become ridiculously expensive to resolve. Collapsing economies would be the least of our problems.
What’s ‘our fault’.It’s a source of energy that is/was historically used at a certain point in time and eventually it will inevitably run out.That’s not anyone’s ‘fault’ it’s just a fact and a case of human progress and necessity and in which case who cares when that point is.But what is certain is that it won’t be in the foreseeable future.On that note as I said exactly the same process will ensure that future generations will deal with their own problems just the same as previous ones did.‘When the time comes’ with no need for it to be done before.While by your logic we have to leave as much as possible of it in the ground and go back to the stone age just to delay that process of evolution.
Ironically that might possibly even be the logic of many of those who are supporting nuclear while closing down the coal mines.IE let’s use an expensive dangerous source of energy that has the potential to poison the place out of existence.Just to leave a load of coal in the ground for generations way in the future instead of us to use.
The stone age is exactly where we’ll be if we don’t address our energy use. We’re an energy hungry society, by exploring other avenues of energy production (renawables) we can extend our supply of fossil fuels whilst developing newer, safer, sustainable energy production technologies. I don’t know about you, but I don’t eat all the food in my cupboards on a Saturday if the shops are all closed on the Sunday!
I’m not sure how familiar you are with the Kardashev (sp?) Scale, but if we have ambitions as a society, we have to leave these outdated technologies behind. As far as I’m concerned, the sooner the better.
Unfortunately, as you pointed out, most of the decisions made by people who can influence such things, are politically motivated. Until that changes, nothing else will.
Captain Caveman 76:
I hope you realise I’m now sat here with fingers pointing in all directions trying to remember Flemings right hand rule!!
Clockwise causes the current to run down the wire, anti-clockwise is up the wire
good_friend:
Captain Caveman 76:
I hope you realise I’m now sat here with fingers pointing in all directions trying to remember Flemings right hand rule!!
Clockwise causes the current to run down the wire, anti-clockwise is up the wire
Electronic flow or conventional current?
Captain Caveman 76:
The stone age is exactly where we’ll be if we don’t address our energy use. We’re an energy hungry society, by exploring other avenues of energy production (renawables) we can extend our supply of fossil fuels whilst developing newer, safer, sustainable energy production technologies. I don’t know about you, but I don’t eat all the food in my cupboards on a Saturday if the shops are all closed on the Sunday!
I’m not sure how familiar you are with the Kardashev (sp?) Scale, but if we have ambitions as a society, we have to leave these outdated technologies behind. As far as I’m concerned, the sooner the better.
Unfortunately, as you pointed out, most of the decisions made by people who can influence such things, are politically motivated. Until that changes, nothing else will.
We’re not energy hungry at all.We’re just a modern civilised society rightly using the technology and resources of our time.IE for us and at least generations in the foreseeable future that’s fossil fuels.Just as long into the future they’ll be relying on totally different technology by necessity.On that note make your mind up.Either you agree with leaving our coal etc resources in the ground for your hypothetical ‘future generations’ long into the unforeseeable future and going for expensive unreliable renewables and equally expensive but also dangerous nuclear energy instead,based on a pointless crusade to delay that changeover point,or not. IE fossil fuel will definitely run out at some point long in the future but it isn’t a problem for us to deal with.Nor will those future generations thank you for leaving a dangerous poisonous nuclear legacy for them as an unavoidable part of that stupid pointless crusade.
On that note ‘if’ you think that fossil fuel use is supposedly ‘outdated’ why would you want to artificially delay it’s depletion date by supposedly leaving it for future generations long into the future.
A bit more info on the urban eTruck, I went to the launch a few months ago …
freightinthecity.com/2016/08/dai … ed-etruck/
I’d suggest that this type of idea is more relevant in applying right across the board from local to distance work.In which case why the half baked approach when surely it would be better to allow LHV’s powered by LPG which would tick all the boxes in doing everything that CNG and LNG can do but better with an already established supply network and advantageous fuel taxation regime.
freightinthecity.com/2016/09/dft … elled-hgvs
papers.sae.org/2012-01-1983/
Juddian:
Its also not our fault that the worlds population is now beyond what is sustainable (increasing fossil fuel usage just one of the results to sustain what can’t be), yet the children those of us who haven’t caused it by being responsible are going to suffer just as much as those who have.
Fossil fuels running out is going to seem a minor irritation to what will come when food and water start to run short in borderless ungovernable mayhem.
A few facts the ‘green’, zero-carbon fanatics haven’t yet considered:
40% of UK food is imported, without using fossil fuel, ships will be back to wind power, either with sails or wind turbines on deck.
Not really going to cope, are they? Other imports are currently on container ships using up to 16 tons per hour.
Without internal combustion engines fed with oil products, Felixstowe and Heathrow would become large museums, no way air travel is feasible without engines. No RAF, no Air Ambulances, lifeboats propelled by oars, cops back on push bikes?
Before the treehuggers suggest hydrogen burning engines, there is no adequate supply of the stuff.
It’s currently made by reforming natural gas, with CO/CO2 by product, or electrolysis, consuming yet more of the electricity they’d rely on wind/wave/solar power for.
The last time we had enough domestic food production was hundreds of years ago; the population of Great Britain in 1801 was only 10.5 million, most villages had a wind/watermill/baker/butcher/blacksmith etc so were almost self sufficient.
Population is now 65 million and rising, dependent on trucks to distribute every essential, no one has a realistic plan of how to do without oil/gas.
Our idiot Parliament has actually passed the Climate Act which legally binds us to cut carbon by 80% - work out for yourselves what effect that would have.
I havenever understood why electricity from renewables has to be more expensive than fossil fuel stuff.We ought to be developing tidal and wave power.There are billions of tons of water moving around our shores in a predictable fashion every day.
alamcculloch:
I havenever understood why electricity from renewables has to be more expensive than fossil fuel stuff.We ought to be developing tidal and wave power.There are billions of tons of water moving around our shores in a predictable fashion every day.
Wind and by implication wave isn’t predictable at all varying from too much to none at all depending on the weather.Tidal might be predictable but like wind isn’t permanent in its action.Which then leaves the cost of infrastructure and generation and transmission losses.On that note I’m guessing that you’d prefer to burn gas directly in a home gas boiler for domestic heating than burn gas to create electricity to do the same job.The same applies in the case of so called renewables let alone even more expensive nuclear generation.IE electricity is one of the most inefficient expensive ways to create,more like transmit,energy regardless of the method of generation and let alone in the case of mobile requirements.With nuclear being more or less the most expensive and potentially most dangerous form of generation.But which will be essential to deal with the drawbacks of ‘renewables’ assuming that fossil fuels are put out of the frame.
Which is why electric vehicles failed to take off from day 1 and it’s also why no one with any sense would prefer to heat their home with electricity rather than gas,or oil or coal.
As it stands the rush to electric vehicles has more to do with creating a captive market for the nuclear energy industry than the bs idea of global warming.No surprise that the next step in that will be forcing people to use electricity for domestic heating.IE a classic case of be careful what you wish for.
Buckstones:
Our idiot Parliament has actually passed the Climate Act which legally binds us to cut carbon by 80% - work out for yourselves what effect that would have.
They’d already shown the extent of their idiocy in that regard by closing down the coal industry based on political dogma and then burning gas reserves to create electricity.All as part of an obvious plan to eventually make us dependent on expensive dangerous nuclear energy.Electric vehicles obviously being part of that plan.