Changing Attitudes: Climate Change

[WYorksWeather]

 richie3846 Interesting point about the electric vans - I agree you tend to see more of them in urban areas.

In terms of where things are going - there is a slow trend still towards increasing battery efficiency for the same cost. There was a temporary rise with inflation, but prices fell again in 2023.

Projecting forward, Goldman Sachs are presently forecasting this:

If prices do drop to $100 per kWh in a couple of years, then that would increase the practical range of vans, for the same battery price, to more like just under 200 miles. Not quite there, but getting closer, and probably enough that maybe a bit of reorganisation / change of planning, coupled with better charging speeds, could possibly make it work for your scenario? And if not, then the projection out to 2030, which pretty much halves the price, would make it more like 250-300 miles.

In short, I do expect the technology to continue to catch up. Things have come a long way since the old Nissan Leaf electrics with 50 mile ranges from the early to mid 2010s. But for light to medium goods vehicles, probably a bit of a way to go for longer-distance applications, unless the charging can get faster.

Obviously we know it can work for large vehicles, but only where the number of miles covered is relatively small and you have an overnight break to charge - e.g. urban bus routes.

 

[jonboy]

You see more electric vans in urban areas because this is where the majority of van journeys are made. Most trade people and delivery's occur within a 20 to 30 mile radius of there main location. 

[reef]

 WYorksWeather The same applies to home batteries too. We got 12.25kWh of LiFePO4 batteries and solar PV fitted in early 2023 and back then they were about £1050 per 2.5kWh and are now about £600. At these sort of prices they can make a huge difference domestically with quite a short payback time.

In 2023 we generated 4700kWh, exported 1700kWh and stored/used over 3000kWh of it. Our yearly electricity cost was -£23, saving £1279 in total. This included being able to charge the battery up cheaply from 2-5am in the winter months. You can get a 4kW PV system and 5kW of batteries for under £6k now, so the payback time is very short.

If every house had similar it would be a game-changer. Our grid usage was 1245kWh in 2023 and with the 1700kWh we sent out we were basically nearly -500kWh for the year.

If governments were serious about net zero there has to be an incentive for people rather than taxing things to change behaviour. If you say to people, we'll give you a £2000 grant towards PV and battery and it'll payback in under 5 years and save you £100s per year on bills, people would take it up. If you say "switch to an EV or we'll tax your petrol/diesel car to oblivion" then the response would be hostile. 

 

[Scuba steve]

 jonboy  cost of large EV vans is the main issue as most trade’s people spend 10 to 20 k on vans and certainly can’t afford 50 k for a large 3.5 ton transit or equivalent 

[WYorksWeather]

 Scuba steve Depends I suppose on whether it's bought/leased or a company car though. If leased, then paying an extra hundred or two a month for the lease would easily pay for itself in reduced fuel costs.

I agree upfront cost might be prohibitive for small traders though if buying outright.

Edited March 30 by WYorksWeather

[Scuba steve]

 WYorksWeather  I work with a lot of contractors and they travel 50 miles a day on average and pay 250 to 350 a month hp or pcp for their vans ,a new EV transit is 850 a month so  around 500 a month more no electric savings would touch the extra costs and that’s the words of the said tradesman namely my joiner and sparky

[WYorksWeather]

 Scuba steve Yeah that's pretty expensive unless you're doing a lot of miles to be fair. Presumably larger vans as I can see quite a few ads for smaller ones around £400-500 pcm which would probably work out similar after fuel costs, but if it doesn't do the job then it doesn't.

Again, probably need a few more years of cost reductions for larger vans - of course hard to predict the future but a halving in costs from current levels by 2030 would make quite a difference I'd imagine.

[Scuba steve]

 WYorksWeather it’s the most difficult segment of the vehicle fleet to sort without a doubt 

[WYorksWeather]

 Scuba steve Short of long distance HGVs . Who knows though, maybe someday. More realistically, I guess the solution for most of that would be light to medium goods vehicles  for local deliveries, and massively upgrading rail capacity to handle a lot of what is presently transported long distance by road.

 

[Sky Full]

 WYorksWeather   Pretty much reversing all the cuts to the rail network made in 1960’s, by people who had a vested financial interest in expanding road transport?  Shame we made such disastrous decisions back then but I suppose we didn’t know how damaging road transport was going to be for the atmosphere at the time.   Even now I don’t think our rail network is properly made use of by the people who run it but that’s nothing new, really.

[WYorksWeather]

 Sky Full Pretty much agree. Don't want to get too much into politics on this forum though.

[Methuselah]

 Sky Ful: And while HMG has blethered on about carbon neutrality, it's cut rural bus routes. . . You know it makes sense! 

16 million miles of England's bus routes axed

INEWS.CO.UK

---

Towns and cities are becoming increasingly cut off after losing more than half their bus services since 2010 

 

[jonboy]

 WYorksWeather that's what hs2 was designed to do not only passenger capacity but also freight capacity 

[Methuselah]

Now, here's a fine example of what can be done: 

Orbital Retail Park to install 5,000 solar panels

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

Swindon Borough Council has approved the application from Orbital Retail Park Swindon Ltd.

 

[SollyOlly]

 Methuselah Yes, good point. It's not only possible, but just an inherently good thing to do. Of course, it could trigger some folk who might grumble "bah, what's the point, China, India etc..." (funny how they often don't include the US in those rants!).  Anyway - I'd like to see a lot more of this type of thing (the panels, not the moaning!), and 'green rooves' too, where appropriate. There are lots of things that are environmentally sound, improve the quality of life, and keep costs down too.

[Midlands Ice Age]

 SollyOlly

Whilst agreeing that we should do what we can - it clearly makes sense - we must also not put out incorrect data -

Do you actually know what the current CO2 (and the other greenhouse gasses) output of India, China, USA, UK , etc is? , and  what it is planned to be by 2030 , 2040 and 2050?...  

Clue - check in the IPCC reports...  China is doing a lot on 'green' CO2, but is still building 200 new coal fired power stations for each of the next 3 years. The rest of the world virtually nil.

If you really are genuine in your beliefs of the damage being done by 'greenhouse' gasses then your must focus your attention on them. 

Unless you show  all the data you are referring to,   I believe you have got your comments directly from 'extinction', and they, unfortunately,  have not got only 'green' ideals any longer.

Can we please have some data and less of these types of argumentative 'tetchy' aside comments?

MIA

Edited April 6 by Midlands Ice Age

[SollyOlly]

 Midlands Ice Age I'm not looking for an argument, and generally agree about data driven debates. But it doesn't always carry the day...people are emotional creatures and not always rational, unfortunately! 

I just get cross at those who seem to want to use China, India etc as an 'excuse' not to do what we can here. We can only control what we control, as it were. I don't dispute the fact that some countries have higher emissions than others. But I don't think that's a reason not to be the best that we can be. I'm not trying to be tetchy about it... 

[sundog]

'Global population growth, imperialism, and an economic model based on extractive rules of exploitation and trade that ignores natural rates of resource renewal, set the stage for a convergence of several worldwide trends that threaten safe and sustainable human development: accelerating impacts from climate change, pollution, social inequality, biodiversity loss, and disease. '

Earth at risk: An urgent call to end the age of destruction and forge a just and sustainable future | PNAS Nexus | Oxford Academic

ACADEMIC.OUP.COM

---

Abstract. Human development has ushered in an era of converging crises: climate change, ecological destruction, disease...

 

Edited April 6 by sundog

[LetItSnow!]

 SollyOlly To me it comes down to a moral basis. If a load of people decide to butcher and murder one another and get away with it, why not do it yourself? The reason why is because it’s wrong and it’s terrible. The argument of “why bother because XX” (not saying that’s anyone’s viewpoint) is pointless and dare I say even a little childish. Science can help provide us the answers to live a better life not just for ourselves but life as a whole. If change starts with the smaller countries where it’s easier then so be it. 

[Midlands Ice Age]

7 hours ago, SollyOlly said:

I'm not looking for an argument, and generally agree about data driven debates. But it doesn't always carry the day...people are emotional creatures and not always rational, unfortunately! 

I just get cross at those who seem to want to use China, India etc as an 'excuse' not to do what we can here. We can only control what we control, as it were. I don't dispute the fact that some countries have higher emissions than others. But I don't think that's a reason not to be the best that we can be. I'm not trying to be tetchy about it...

Not quite sure what you are saying here...

Is it that we should be driven by our emotions when tackling this climate crisis?

Surely not?

The UK is  still in the top 25% of countries in implementing  the measures as required by the various climate change emissions requirements.   This is despite the recent Tory proposal to delay the rollout of EV's by allowing non EV's to be delayed by 5 years.

The decision was made based upon the fact that we will not be  ready to go fully electric from a network and transport  point of view.

Before that the UK was in the top 10 percent of countries.

The technology is just not 'up to it' for this  country to be ready as yet.

Other countries with bountiful supplies of hydro based power are above us.

Even if we were leading the race to go green, it would  make no difference to out ultimate fate.  Fully green we would be able to reduce the temperature increase by just 0.02C.

Is that really what you think  we should be doing?

MIA

Edited April 6 by Midlands Ice Age

[WYorksWeather]

 Midlands Ice Age Just as a useful thing by the way for emissions by country -  I recommend this website which has a lot of country-by-country breakdowns of policies.

Home | Climate Action Tracker

CLIMATEACTIONTRACKER.ORG

The things I like about it are that it focuses on the short term emissions trajectory up to 2030 - in other words based on policies that are being implemented now. I also find them to be relatively even-handed in their criticism of countries. They do take a pro-environmental stance and criticise virtually every country, but I don't find it to be unfairly applied. Here is their headline for India:

Quote

 

Despite achieving substantial progress in installing renewable energy capacity, securing the fourth position globally in 2022, India's dependence on fossil fuels is still on the rise as it directs coal and gas-fired power plants to operate at peak capacity to meet the rise in seasonal electricity demand brought on by record-hot summers.

Long-term planning is crucial for India to deal with volatile energy demand in response to changing weather patterns. There is a pressing need for India, and the world at large, to prioritise a definitive transition away from fossil fuels, imperative for achieving the country's broader developmental goals.

Our latest data indicates a slightly lower estimate of 2030 emissions under current policies due to the increased renewable energy adoption and reduced power sector emissions. However, under current policies, India's overall emissions are still expected to rise beyond 2030. To ensure a fair contribution to the global climate crisis, India’s emissions would need to stay below the emissions projected under current policies, and with international support, it could expedite faster reductions.

The CAT’s overall rating of India’s climate targets and action remains “Highly insufficient”.

 

For China:

Quote

China’s emissions under current policies are projected to peak by 2025, five years ahead of its 2030 target, yet it still plans no significant nor meaningful emission reductions in the critical period before 2030. Energy and electricity demand forecasts continue to grow steadily: the primary question remains whether China’s record - and rapid - renewables deployment is enough to accelerate its post-coal transition and reduce fuel-switching to fossil gas in end-use sectors.

The government continues to champion the role of fossil fuels in transitioning its energy sector, with continued increases in fossil fuel production seen as key to providing stability and security, despite a national shift from limiting energy consumption to carbon emissions.

Carbon emissions peaking timelines in high-emitting industry sectors have been pushed back to align with the economy-wide 2030 peaking target, despite domestic signals suggesting there are opportunities for more action. Policymakers have room to increase ambition in China's climate, energy and sectoral targets but geopolitics, energy security concerns, and international diplomacy remain a lingering barrier.

China and the US released a much-anticipated joint statement on climate cooperation on 15 November 2023 ahead of COP28. While both countries supported the G20 Leaders Declaration to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030 and outlined further bilateral work on a series of focus areas, no concrete mitigation targets were made from the world’s largest historical and current emitters. A pledge to accelerate renewable energy deployment and reduce power sector emissions this decade after peaking is positive but is yet again set on a non-binding timeline and reduction level.

Prior to the statement, China also released its long-awaited Methane Action Plan, but the plan only sets basic directions to control methane emissions across sectors, again falling short of setting meaningful reduction targets.

The CAT’s overall rating for China’s policies and targets remains “Highly insufficient”.

The UK and US are both rated "Insufficient". Only a very small number of countries get the rating above that of "Almost sufficient", and none get "Paris Agreement compatible".

A lot depends on whether you use pure target-based accounting, or whether you account for some sort of historic fair-share accounting. In other words, supposing you calculate a carbon budget for a particular warming level, do you split it by countries purely according to size, or do you say e.g. the US and UK should emit less since they started industrialisation earlier, which gives countries with more recent industrialisation more time to make the transition? The Climate Action Tracker site, in fairness, considers both methods.

In terms of emissions by country, China's emissions are now expected to peak before 2030 but not really start falling. India's emissions are still projected to rise up to 2030.

[Midlands Ice Age]

 WYorksWeather

Thanks for the above WYW...

Yes it is good to see a more realistic evaluation of the current state of our emissions.

However my position  (as I discussed with Solly, and previous) is that if human activities and emissions are the driver of climate change then we cannot ignore the actions of India and China. The 'accounting' figures show that by 2040 they will be producing 80% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. 

     

Yes there is still more work to be done in the countries that we can affect, but will it make any real difference to the climate whether the UK goes totally zero emissions in 2050 or 2070? Yes we still have one operative coal powered power station!!! 

The same applies for just about every 'western' country. (except Mexico, Canada and Argentina??).

Looking at emissions the UK has reduced its 'output' by about 75% since the 1990's,

China has increased their's by 400% during that time, and what concerns me is that despite claims it will be brought under control, I see no direct evidence of it actually reducing its increases for about 5 years (they say 2 years), and also none at all, that it will start reducing them for about 20 years.

These are the realistic facts that should concern the activists, not the fact that the UK could go quicker (though at a cost to all of us), and that it will cause a difference of about 0.002C in 75 years time.

Water cleanliness and plastic 'pollution'  are however areas for immediate action. (Spoken by someone who has worked on and has some patents for plastic materials in the real world) . 

I will leave it at that for now as I want to keep the debate as free from politics as possible. 

Those are my reasons for why I choose to react to certain throw away and incorrect remarks in the thread.

Lets keep it 'data' fed and not 'emotion' led.

MIA

 

 

 

Edited April 8 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

Beer-drinkers beware: 

Climate change could soon affect the taste of beer, new study says - ABC News

ABCNEWS.GO.COM

---

Beer lovers beware: Climate change could soon make one of the world's favorite libations much more bitter.

 

[SollyOlly]

 Midlands Ice Age Just a couple of things, and then I'll leave it there:

- I have never said that we should 'ignore' the actions of China and India;

- Politics is an inevitable part of the CC debate, sadly. Economic and social policy decisions are all political; and

- The 'disrupters' and CC deniers etc all use very sophisticated tools that manipulate people's emotions. Those of us who want a more reasoned debate, indeed one that includes more data, have to be aware of that and be able to use it too.

[Methuselah]

Well, unless one has the hubris to overthrow all we know about thermodynamics (entropy always increases) there can be no doubt that human activity is responsible for a large part of global warming. And, yes China, India and the USA are responsible for most of that. . . So, the only question is: What do we do about it?

I don't know the answer to that question. But pointing fingers is not the answer!