flammen:
The system they have limits these trucks to stay on a singular route to draw from grid power the whole way and never needing to stop. This is literally what a train is.
It even specified in the video they’ll never be able to remove smaller journeys from diesel truck usage.
Think rail is vastly underrated on the basis that passenger experience is ■■■■ poor.
I hate trains in all honesty, but they server a purpose and one of those is the transport of goods. Just like planes. Accepting that doesn’t take the importance away from the HGV and LGV. You could deliver the worlds goods with just trucks, you couldn’t with just trains, and everybody knows that. But the point is, the system in this video with a pantograph system is literally a train only a train they don’t have to build the infrastructure… cos its already there…
At the end of the day it’s got all same the downsides of rail transport regarding ( non ) flexibility/ability to operate away from cable supply infrastructure.
Also as the rail industry has found electric is uneconomic v diesel not because of the infrastructure costs but because an ICE is actually even more efficient and cost effective in producing electricity to actually move the train than any type of power station.Let alone the truck’s ability to also not need the electric transmission system to move it.
Agreed we could probably do without rail transport but not road transport.
But as usual the government is laughably biased in favour of rail transport regardless of how it’s fuelled.
Then they decide to get rid of the most efficient/safest/cheapest method of fuelling and propelling road transport and lumber it with all the downsides of rail.
At the cost of 26p per kwh + road fuel duty and 20% VAT and the potential for nuclear disaster in addition to burning living trees instead of long dead ones and wiping out farmland under solar panels.
All that so all the fossil fuel can be burnt by ‘developing countries’.They know that CO2 didn’t cook Venus and it certainly won’t cook Earth.
‘But why not use the train instead of trucks?’ - This is always the bollox spouted by the intellectually challenged anti-lorry idea spouter usually in an office or down at the pub.
Hmm, I reckon my local mid- sized Morrisons has about 10 artics going in there a day, so you are going to build a new branch line in there? Oh, wait hang on that doesn’t make sense.
OK how about to the RDC? Well that might have made sense have a goods rail going in 20 years ago when the RDC was built. But now goods line going in to every RDC? How much ancient woodland, houses, farmland is sacrificed for that?
Yes, diesel ■■■■■ but trucks are not going anywhere, change the fuel source.
lewn777:
‘But why not use the train instead of trucks?’ - This is always the bollox spouted by the intellectually challenged anti-lorry idea spouter usually in an office or down at the pub.
.
Also they then wonder why they can’t find enough new entrants to the industry when all it has to offer drivers is local distribution work.
Might as well drive a moped doing fast food deliveries for 4 hours per day and top it up with UC.Which is obviously exactly what’s happening.
Carryfast:
CO2 didn’t cook Venus atmospheric pressure and proximity to the Sun did.Which means that the whole ‘climate change’ script is a lie.
If that were so, Mercury would have a higher surface temperature than Venus. It doesn’t.
Why would a planet that’s only 10 million miles closer to the Sun than Venus, with no atmosphere, be expected to have a higher surface temperature than Venus with its 90 bar atmospheric pressure.
How do you explain the daytime temperature on the Moon at 260 F v the 800 F of Mercury when both have no atmosphere.
Atmospheric pressure matters.Which is why B29 crews could fly at 30,000 feet wearing a T shirt while B17 crews needed a massive thick heated flying suit and that’s less than 1 bar of pressure needed to do it.
It’s also why there’s snow at the top of Kilimanjaro near the equator unlike at its base.
The Climate myth is busted right there with pure facts CO2 isn’t the Greenhouse monster that the electric captive market snake oil salesmen are trying to sell us, let alone at 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Carryfast:
CO2 didn’t cook Venus atmospheric pressure and proximity to the Sun did.Which means that the whole ‘climate change’ script is a lie.
Fossil fuel free electric generation means burning trees instead of coal and gas and covering fields needed for food in solar panels destroying the root structure meaning soil erosion and the risk of nuclear disaster at 26p per kwh + road fuel taxes + the cost of batteries.
As opposed to 12-18p per kwh including road fuel taxes for diesel.
How would overhead power lines provide for route and location flexibility.
So all the downsides of rail with none of the upsides of road at the risk of turning the country into a nuked dustbowl at around twice the cost for the privilege to solve a non existent problem.
All to provide a captive market, for a bunch of profiteering, anything but green, scammers.
Carryfast:
CO2 didn’t cook Venus atmospheric pressure and proximity to the Sun did.Which means that the whole ‘climate change’ script is a lie.
If that were so, Mercury would have a higher surface temperature than Venus. It doesn’t.
Why would a planet that’s only 10 million miles closer to the Sun than Venus, with no atmosphere, be expected to have a higher surface temperature than Venus with its 90 bar atmospheric pressure.
How do you explain the daytime temperature on the Moon at 260 F v the 800 F of Mercury when both have no atmosphere.
Atmospheric pressure matters.Which is why B29 crews could fly at 30,000 feet wearing a T shirt while B17 crews needed a massive thick heated flying suit and that’s less than 1 bar of pressure needed to do it.
It’s also why there’s snow at the top of Kilimanjaro near the equator unlike at its base.
The Climate myth is busted right there with pure facts CO2 isn’t the Greenhouse monster that the electric captive market snake oil salesmen are trying to sell us, let alone at 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Boom.
We haven’t even got into the logarithmic effects of CO2, meaning as you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, the less of an effect that addition has. i.e. a doubling of CO2 does NOT equal a doubling in the absorption of IR, and as the amount increases, the per-unit effect diminishes.
Carryfast:
CO2 didn’t cook Venus atmospheric pressure and proximity to the Sun did.Which means that the whole ‘climate change’ script is a lie.
If that were so, Mercury would have a higher surface temperature than Venus. It doesn’t.
Why would a planet that’s only 10 million miles closer to the Sun than Venus, with no atmosphere, be expected to have a higher surface temperature than Venus with its 90 bar atmospheric pressure.
How do you explain the daytime temperature on the Moon at 260 F v the 800 F of Mercury when both have no atmosphere.
Atmospheric pressure matters.Which is why B29 crews could fly at 30,000 feet wearing a T shirt while B17 crews needed a massive thick heated flying suit and that’s less than 1 bar of pressure needed to do it.
It’s also why there’s snow at the top of Kilimanjaro near the equator unlike at its base.
The Climate myth is busted right there with pure facts CO2 isn’t the Greenhouse monster that the electric captive market snake oil salesmen are trying to sell us, let alone at 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Professor Brian Cox eat your heart out, Professor Geoffrey Carryfast is in the (Green)house.
Screw actual scientists, just ask a lorry driver about climate science.
I’m off to the chiropractor for my dentistry and going to a tree surgeon to get my engine rebuilt.
You don’t need experts these days. You’'ll find my space rockets and brain surgery is top notch, it’s just you just have to believe in yourself enough. The arrogance of experts to think because they have a doctorate in a specific field they are better than someone with a bit of self confidence and a can-do attitude.
Carryfast:
CO2 didn’t cook Venus atmospheric pressure and proximity to the Sun did.Which means that the whole ‘climate change’ script is a lie.
If that were so, Mercury would have a higher surface temperature than Venus. It doesn’t.
Why would a planet that’s only 10 million miles closer to the Sun than Venus, with no atmosphere, be expected to have a higher surface temperature than Venus with its 90 bar atmospheric pressure.
How do you explain the daytime temperature on the Moon at 260 F v the 800 F of Mercury when both have no atmosphere.
Atmospheric pressure matters.Which is why B29 crews could fly at 30,000 feet wearing a T shirt while B17 crews needed a massive thick heated flying suit and that’s less than 1 bar of pressure needed to do it.
It’s also why there’s snow at the top of Kilimanjaro near the equator unlike at its base.
The Climate myth is busted right there with pure facts CO2 isn’t the Greenhouse monster that the electric captive market snake oil salesmen are trying to sell us, let alone at 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Professor Brian Cox eat your heart out, Professor Geoffrey Carryfast is in the (Green)house.
lewn777:
Screw actual scientists, just ask a lorry driver about climate science.
I’m off to the chiropractor for my dentistry and going to a tree surgeon to get my engine rebuilt.
You don’t need experts these days. You’'ll find my space rockets and brain surgery is top notch, it’s just you just have to believe in yourself enough. The arrogance of experts to think because they have a doctorate in a specific field they are better than someone with a bit of self confidence and a can-do attitude.
Thought to be fair Carryfast isn’t a lorry driver (a state of affairs we currently share)
lewn777:
Professor Brian Cox eat your heart out, Professor Geoffrey Carryfast is in the (Green)house.
The Carryfast Dunning-Kruger effect.
[/quote]
As opposed to the electricity supply industry saying that you need to/must go all electric because we know that CO2 cooked Venus and it would have cooked Mercury too if it had any, and burning living trees, instead of long dead ones in the form of oil, gas, and coal, will fix that here on Earth.
They might need to ‘fund’ a ‘few’ scientists and government officials to confirm their ‘findings’ to make the captive market scam stick.
lewn777:
Screw actual scientists, just ask a lorry driver about climate science.
I’m off to the chiropractor for my dentistry and going to a tree surgeon to get my engine rebuilt.
There’s plenty of climate sceptic science out there if you are open minded enough to listen to it.
The difference is that, unlike Al Gore and Octopus etc, it obviously has no financial interest in this unaffordable all electric nuke and tree burning fuelled nightmare.
Carryfast:
As opposed to the electricity supply industry saying that you need to/must go all electric because we know that CO2 cooked Venus and it would have cooked Mercury too if it had any, and burning living trees, instead of long dead ones in the form of oil, gas, and coal, will fix that here on Earth.
They might need to ‘fund’ a ‘few’ scientists and government officials to confirm their ‘findings’ to make the captive market scam stick.
I do love your jumbled mind! It’s like a skip full of words doing 56mph on motorway without a sheet or net
Carryfast:
Why would a planet that’s only 10 million miles closer to the Sun than Venus, with no atmosphere, be expected to have a higher surface temperature than Venus with its 90 bar atmospheric pressure.
Carryfast:
How do you explain the daytime temperature on the Moon at 260 F v the 800 F of Mercury when both have no atmosphere.
Surface albedo, poximity to sun (insolation recieved due to inverse square law), surface geology & readiogenic decay.
Carryfast:
Atmospheric pressure matters.Which is why B29 crews could fly at 30,000 feet wearing a T shirt while B17 crews needed a massive thick heated flying suit and that’s less than 1 bar of pressure needed to do it.
It’s also why there’s snow at the top of Kilimanjaro near the equator unlike at its base.
The Climate myth is busted right there with pure facts CO2 isn’t the Greenhouse monster that the electric captive market snake oil salesmen are trying to sell us, let alone at 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Temperature only changes with changes in pressure inside a closed system. Pressurised aircraft are closed systems, planetary atmospheres are not. Aircraft are pressureised so that you can breath, not so that they’re warm, they still have to be heated.
Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a constant temperature drop as you gain altitude either, nor is Venus’s. On Earth temperature eventually inverts and starts becoming warmer with altitude gain, although obviously still colder than at the surface.The reason temperature drops with altitude is the decrease in atmoshperic density as you climb, there’s less atmosphere to conduct heat to you and what decides that is the density of the atmosphere and the planet’s gravity. Venus has a lot more quantity of atmosphere than Earth does, that’s why it has a much higher surface pressure, despite it having 90% of Earth’s gravity.
I was pointing out that Mercury is cooler than Venous despite its proximity to the Sun, so Venous’s poximity isn’t as an important factor as its atmosphere’s ability to trap heat is. As you probably know, on Venous it’s 95% CO2 and not much else. It is very dense though and so the surface pressure is high, that isn’t the reason it it hot though. Mercury is also 30 million miles closer to the sun, not 10.
That’s not even the end of the case, very little solar insolation actually reaches Venus’s surface (<5%, more energy reaches Earth’s surface per m3 than on Venus) or the CO2 layer because most of it is reflected by the high altitude cloud layer. Over 70% of the Sun’s insolation is reflected back into space due to the planets albeado being so high, it’s the highest of any of the planets and is the reason it is so bright in the night sky. Yet it’s still hot, because it’s atmosphere is so effeicient at trapping heat.
Carryfast:
CO2 didn’t cook Venus atmospheric pressure and proximity to the Sun did.Which means that the whole ‘climate change’ script is a lie.
Fossil fuel free electric generation means burning trees instead of coal and gas and covering fields needed for food in solar panels destroying the root structure meaning soil erosion and the risk of nuclear disaster at 26p per kwh + road fuel taxes + the cost of batteries.
As opposed to 12-18p per kwh including road fuel taxes for diesel.
How would overhead power lines provide for route and location flexibility.
So all the downsides of rail with none of the upsides of road at the risk of turning the country into a nuked dustbowl at around twice the cost for the privilege to solve a non existent problem.
All to provide a captive market, for a bunch of profiteering, anything but green, scammers.
While it’s undisputed to say climate change on Earth has been in constant flux over hundreds of millions of years, even long before homo sapiens learned how to make fire and fashion tools out of stone, it is a fallacy not to accept the concept of anthropogenic climate change. The very statement you quote about turning the country into a nuked dustbowl, you have of course without realising just made the very case of human activity risking and having a serious detrimental impact on the environment. All be it radioactive waste is a much more serious material to deal with than much of the other “waste” we as a species produce. Obviously the issue of the dumping of untreated sewerage into our waterways is a non existent problem as well! And there are no upsides to gridlocked roads which seem to becoming the norm.
Carryfast:
CO2 didn’t cook Venus atmospheric pressure and proximity to the Sun did.Which means that the whole ‘climate change’ script is a lie.
Fossil fuel free electric generation means burning trees instead of coal and gas and covering fields needed for food in solar panels destroying the root structure meaning soil erosion and the risk of nuclear disaster at 26p per kwh + road fuel taxes + the cost of batteries.
As opposed to 12-18p per kwh including road fuel taxes for diesel.
How would overhead power lines provide for route and location flexibility.
So all the downsides of rail with none of the upsides of road at the risk of turning the country into a nuked dustbowl at around twice the cost for the privilege to solve a non existent problem.
All to provide a captive market, for a bunch of profiteering, anything but green, scammers.
While it’s undisputed to say climate change on Earth has been in constant flux over hundreds of millions of years, even long before homo sapiens learned how to make fire and fashion tools out of stone, it is a fallacy not to accept the concept of anthropogenic climate change. The very statement you quote about turning the country into a nuked dustbowl, you have of course without realising just made the very case of human activity risking and having a serious detrimental impact on the environment. All be it radioactive waste is a much more serious material to deal with than much of the other “waste” we as a species produce. Obviously the issue of the dumping of untreated sewerage into our waterways is a non existent problem as well! And there are no upsides to gridlocked roads which seem to becoming the norm.
Nah.
You’re mixing up the probable with the certainty.
The scientists who claim that change is entirely due to humans fail to explain the anomalies.
Specifically, the huge shifts in climate over millenia that clearly are not attributed to human pollution…
Carryfast:
Atmospheric pressure matters.Which is why B29 crews could fly at 30,000 feet wearing a T shirt while B17 crews needed a massive thick heated flying suit and that’s less than 1 bar of pressure needed to do it.
It’s also why there’s snow at the top of Kilimanjaro near the equator unlike at its base.
The Climate myth is busted right there with pure facts CO2 isn’t the Greenhouse monster that the electric captive market snake oil salesmen are trying to sell us, let alone at 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Temperature only changes with changes in pressure inside a closed system. Pressurised aircraft are closed systems, planetary atmospheres are not. Aircraft are pressureised so that you can breath, not so that they’re warm, they still have to be heated.
Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a constant temperature drop as you gain altitude either, nor is Venus’s. On Earth temperature eventually inverts and starts becoming warmer with altitude gain, although obviously still colder than at the surface.The reason temperature drops with altitude is the decrease in atmoshperic density as you climb, there’s less atmosphere to conduct heat to you and what decides that is the density of the atmosphere and the planet’s gravity. Venus has a lot more quantity of atmosphere than Earth does, that’s why it has a much higher surface pressure, despite it having 90% of Earth’s gravity.
I was pointing out that Mercury is cooler than Venous despite its proximity to the Sun, so Venous’s poximity isn’t as an important factor as its atmosphere’s ability to trap heat is. As you probably know, on Venous it’s 95% CO2 and not much else. It is very DENSE though and so the surface pressure is high, that isn’t the reason it it hot though. Mercury is also 30 million miles closer to the sun, not 10.
That’s not even the end of the case, very little solar insolation actually reaches Venus’s surface (<5%, more energy reaches Earth’s surface per m3 than on Venus) or the CO2 layer because most of it is reflected by the high altitude cloud layer. Over 70% of the Sun’s insolation is reflected back into space due to the planets albeado being so high, it’s the highest of any of the planets and is the reason it is so bright in the night sky. Yet it’s still hot, because it’s atmosphere is so effeicient at trapping heat.
A planetary atmosphere is obviously a ‘closed system’ or it would be lost to space.
Fair enough Mercury is 57 m km’s from the Sun.
Venus is around 108 m kms call it 40m kms or 25 m million miles difference.Certainly nothing like the difference between the Earth and Moon and the Sun.
What’s the difference between atmospheric density v atmospheric pressure ?.It’s the same thing.
The ‘equivalent’ cabin heating in a B29 will create a lot more cabin temperature than a B17 ‘because’ of the pressure.
Just like the same Sun energy at the top of Kilimanjaro v the base.
If temperature on Earth supposedly ‘inverts’ with altitude how do you end up with a ‘net’ colder temperature at altitude.
So what would Venus’ ground temperture be with the same atmosphere as Earth ‘but’ with Venus’ 90 bar pressure.
Bearing in mind the 800 degrees F of Mercury’s, daytime temperature, v the 900 F of Venus.
I won’t hold my breath waithing for an answer.
It’s obvious that the ground temperature of Venus can be better explained by its ‘closed system’ 90 bar pressure and the fact that it is a lot closer to the Sun than Earth.
To the point where Venus’ atmospheric pressure predictably more than cancels out Mercury’s relatively closer distance to the Sun.
Carryfast:
CO2 didn’t cook Venus atmospheric pressure and proximity to the Sun did.Which means that the whole ‘climate change’ script is a lie.
Fossil fuel free electric generation means burning trees instead of coal and gas and covering fields needed for food in solar panels destroying the root structure meaning soil erosion and the risk of nuclear disaster at 26p per kwh + road fuel taxes + the cost of batteries.
As opposed to 12-18p per kwh including road fuel taxes for diesel.
How would overhead power lines provide for route and location flexibility.
So all the downsides of rail with none of the upsides of road at the risk of turning the country into a nuked dustbowl at around twice the cost for the privilege to solve a non existent problem.
All to provide a captive market, for a bunch of profiteering, anything but green, scammers.
While it’s undisputed to say climate change on Earth has been in constant flux over hundreds of millions of years, even long before homo sapiens learned how to make fire and fashion tools out of stone, it is a fallacy not to accept the concept of anthropogenic climate change. The very statement you quote about turning the country into a nuked dustbowl, you have of course without realising just made the very case of human activity risking and having a serious detrimental impact on the environment. All be it radioactive waste is a much more serious material to deal with than much of the other “waste” we as a species produce. Obviously the issue of the dumping of untreated sewerage into our waterways is a non existent problem as well! And there are no upsides to gridlocked roads which seem to becoming the norm.
Nah.
You’re mixing up the probable with the certainty.
The scientists who claim that change is entirely due to humans fail to explain the anomalies.
Specifically, the huge shifts in climate over millenia that clearly are not attributed to human pollution…
In short brain washing is alive and well in 2021…
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I didn’t say or claim anything was entirely down to humans! And do point me to where it states or where it is written that any scientist has claimed the Ice Age as an example of a major climate shift was caused by human activity?
If you accept the premise that sticking a hose pipe in your car’s exhaust while the engine is running, and then directing that pipe into the interior will kill you if you sat inside, then where do you suppose all the stuff we as human’s spew out ends up? It’s taken us long enough to realise we can’t keep producing and burying our waste in the ground, open your eyes there’s rubbish discarded everywhere!
I don’t see things as being infinite whether it’s my bank account or the planet’s resources, it’s really not that hard to figure out.
(a state of affairs we currently share)