Fudging Issues.

[MauriceMynah]

Try as I might, I can no longer contain my frustration regarding two distinctly different issues being conjoined as one leading to misrepresentation, misinformation and in some corners , profiteering.

Diesel v Petrol v Electric when being discussed  in relation to Pollution and Climate change.

Climate change is, whilst talking about fuels, a matter of certain gasses being released into the atmosphere and the "greenhouse effect". The petrol engine is the naughty boy here. The arguments about the power stations supplying electricity and the fuels used are known and still rage, BUT, the diesel engine is almost able to be called "Your friend". The greenhouse gasses released by diesel engines are minimal when compared with petrol engines. 

Particulate pollution however is the reverse. The diesel engine is the "dirty boy on the block" with petrol this time being your friend.

So, how is this important in regards to the broads? 

I can understand the idea that banning the massive numbers of diesel cars from cities as being good for the community, yes that makes perfect sense, as does loading the price of DERV to achieve the same ends. where I fail to see the argument is the Broads Authority loading the tolls on motor craft saying it does so towards being "Carbon neutral".

Am I barking up the wrong tree here?  I don't know and stand to be corrected, but if I am correct, people need to both know AND UNDERSTAND what the real issues are, and what various organisations are trying to do.

I am all for doing whatever we can to minimise the effect the human race has on the planet, and I'm right in favour of trying to save little city children's lungs from the ravages of pollution but I feel it essential to know which action/price hike/demonstration is doing what to which.

[grendel]

I agree MM, particulates are the bad boy with diesel engines, but on the broads the exhaust systems are generally wet exhausts, so the sooty smoke is mixed with water, which should generally remove some of the particulates from the atmosphere and theoretically disperse them in the water, now whether this is in any way better than kicking them out into the air then having them settle onto the water i have no idea. 

But and this is a big but, compare the number of engines on the broads, to say the centre of london, the broads may spread several thousand engines over its 120 mile extents, car and lorry engines are all clustered in one place (usually for me the dartford tunnel or QE2 bridge (150,000 vehicles a day)) and there will be tens of thousands of them daily spewing out the particulates in a fairly small area, the two dont compare.even when you have 30 boats in a small area all starting up simultaneously, it doesnt compare to the number of cars and lorries starting up at say the services on a motorway on an hour by hour basis, the pollution caused by boats as opposed to cars or lorries is infinitesamal in the great scheme of things.

at one time the major concern was the lead from petrol - we introduced unleaded petrol

then it was carbon monoxide from petrol, so catalytic convertors were added, 

with diesel it is particulates, so now we have particulate filters being added to cars and lorries (i believe the adblue is something to do with this too. some diesel fuels emit more than others too, with vegetable oil diesel being a slightly cleaner option than fossil fuel diesel.

the biggest part of the pollution that occurs is through cars and lorries only being driven for short distances and constant stop starting with engines not properly reaching operating temperature.

I do a 125 mile daily commute, I do it  in a diesel car, and the car gets up to full operating temperature quite quickly and stays there, my car is 17 years old and sails through the emissions part of the MOT time after time as it runs at its optimal temperature, I have seen 3 year old cars fail the emissions test due to never having been driven more than a few miles a day, and that all in heavy traffic so mostly on tickover.

the solution is better local public transport, if people could manage without using their car locally then pollution would be less and a lot of the carbon targets would suddenly become easier to achieve.

[TheQ]

Most modern cars and lorries have particulate filters so they are not the problem...

The biggest generator of particulates is.. Public transport IE buses, they often very old. Hence the road round the bottom of the castle where all the buses sit on idle is one of the most polluted roads in Norfolk..

[MauriceMynah]

This is rather what I'm getting at. "Carbon emissions" are about climate change, and therefore diesels are to be the encouraged power source when talking 'saving the world', not taxed further. Hence my observation.

I often hear that x percentage of mains power is supplied by renewables. Does this figure vary from area to area? If so, the national grid isn't what I thought. Does an area near a wind farm have a higher figure than say central London?

Somehow I can't get away from the feeling that we are all victim of Statistics doctoring. If a wind farm supplies an area the size of Beccles, that does not mean that Beccles itself is the beneficiary of that wind farm (and that we should all drive to Beccles to charge our cars), just that it, the farm, supplies that percentage of energy split between the nation (and Canvey Island) via the national grid.

It follows therefore that electric (rechargeable) cars are not as green as the various political parties would have us believe, and that this is just a smokescreen to lead us to believe they are doing something to ease climate change and not just taxing us again.

If say 30% of the national grid is supplied by green energy, that means 70% is dirty energy. How much dirtier if at all, is that power compared with a diesel inboard doing the same job?

Given that argument, the rechargeable boat may, or may not be greener than diesel, or even petrol. How can we know? How can we find out? The point also is that there are so few of them on the broads, it's probably not worth the research anyway.

Some of you might have noticed that I try tomake no statement of either opinion or fact, but ask many questions. Questions I believe we should all be asking.

 

[Smoggy]

Nice one MM you've made me feel less guilty about my boat engines, as I cycle to work (a whole 1.5 minutes) and swmbo takes the train at the moment we rarely use the car locally, it's biggest mileage is to norwich and back so 90 well thrashed miles each way, we have solar panels on the roof and try and use hot water as storage so use less gas (our FIT payments are over our combined gas/electric bills over the year).

We either walk the dog to the pub or cycle, that can be most entertaining on the way home, our bins are never full except the green garden waste, and we throw away very little food so I recon we are doing pretty well.

But don't get me started on those flappy boat things going around making that terrible flappy noise and riuning the peace of the environment!

[dnks34]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

Most modern cars and lorries have particulate filters so they are not the problem...

The biggest generator of particulates is.. Public transport IE buses, they often very old. Hence the road round the bottom of the castle where all the buses sit on idle is one of the most polluted roads in Norfolk..

Buses on Castle Meadow are not supposed to idle for more than 2 minutes but there are problems that come with switching the vehicle off.   

It might not start again and the driver and passengers get cold!

First thing a controller says to a driver when radioing in to report a  bus that wont start..........why did you switch it off!

[annv]

Hi Its all about pollution at point of use electric boat no pollution on river BUT where and how is the electricity produced, a diesel engine generator used to charge the electric less pollution as a diesel designed and running at optimum speed/economically better and  less then main engine being used to recharge batteries, solar used to charge batteries no pollution.there always will be pollution ie leather shoes cows, produce methane then we eat the meat  and use the hide for leather, no cows! plastic from oil?? which is worse can't grow veg on mountain side cows/sheep only way. According to Americans Carbon Monoxide is tomorrow's pollution Nitrous Oxide from diesels today's pollution. Amsterdam is banning ALL petrol/diesel boats and vehicles from entering the centa boarded by ring road. John

[grendel]

MM all energy (from whatever source) is just fed into the national grid.

What happens when you pay for 'Green' energy is that you are paying one of the suppliers that feed green energy into the grid (from a wind farm etc)

what you get is a dollop of energy that could have come from any source through the country, what you get could have been input into the system from a diesel generator or coal, or anything, you are buying green energy because you are paying the company that added green energy into the system (think about all those thousands of people who believe that they are getting the energy produced from the wind turbines directly, all those nuclear protesters that are happy that their particular energy doesnt come from nuclear plants) its all fed into the same wires, and is identical to any other package of energy that flows out the other end, so when they quote percentages its spread over the whole national grid.

if you really want to know how much energy is currently being derived from which type of supply, then have fun looking here http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

for instance we are currently (as a nation) using 43.58GW of electricity, nearly equal amounts are being generated by the cleanest and dirtiest methods (wind and coal) at just over 5% nuclear is running about 17% and 47% is gas turbines, biomass produces about 7% and solar about 8%, a further 8% is being imported from France holland and belgium (ooh I wonder how that will work after Brexit) so how much of that counts as green energy then? to make up your 30% nuclear is being counted as green - low emmission) as while it is running it is very low carbon emmission (as long as you dont count the building and decommissioning of that nuclear plant), of course we arent just importing foreign energy, we are also exporting it to Ireland (thinks if we imported energy from ireland would that be green energy?) so about 2% of our energy is being sent abroad

[CambridgeCabby]

Extinction Rebellion protest in Cambridge today , very relavent to MM’s posting 

[rightsaidfred]

The problem now is not so much climate change but that it has spawned a whole new industrial sector and become a political football both of whom disseminate the information in a way that benefits them most,  we are now at a  point where instead of adopting new technology rationally we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Fred

 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

9 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

 .Climate change is, whilst talking about fuels, a matter of certain gasses being released into the atmosphere and the "greenhouse effect". 

I`m going to make your day John, 

I disagree with you on this. Climate change has been going on for millions of years and has NEVER been caused by mans influence. We had a discussion about this on the forum a while ago. I think you may possibly confusing yourself with " Global Warming", which itself was only ever a politically advantageous theory. 

Remember all the things the campaigners protested about?, 4x4s being a prominent one, yet as soon as the tax on them went through the roof, all of a sudden they became safer for the environment, just because you payed more tax on them?.  There`s absolutely NOTHING wrong with diesel cars, the big problem for the chancellor of the exchequer is the fact they`re now doing double the mpg of the same car with a petrol engine, ergo, only half the tax being payed.

It`s always adviseable to question the motives, honesty, and integrity of authority, and have an open mind, an example is the recent decade of parliamentary corruption in many forms.

[floydraser]

11 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Try as I might, I can no longer contain my frustration regarding two distinctly different issues being conjoined as one leading to misrepresentation, misinformation and in some corners , profiteering.

Me too, I particularly get annoyed with the profiteering and I'm afraid it'll become the trend in the aftermath of environmental protests. The difference in the toll rises (1% vs 2.9%) reflects the approach that business will take to "tackling" climate change/pollution; whack up prices for the consumer and claim to be doing something.

The BA's justification is more than a little ambiguous. They have made the statement that they have the trendy view of disliking the internal combustion engine, so what, in the long term do they want and in practical terms, what do they expect?

In my view none of us are going to rush out and change our propulsion systems, so the BA will enjoy the extra cash. I wonder if it will follow that powered craft will become less desirable - more hulks - less income?

I remember when diesel was cheaper than petrol until John (two jags) Prescot came along and increased the duty because of "revelations" about particulates. Probably where the BA got the idea but I'm not sure they thought it through.

It is my view that a substantial contribution to the environmental cause could be acheived by educating us all in better use of everyday resources. Remember when you had a bottle of Fairy Liquid and a tin of Vim? And that was all you had in the house to clean everything. I've just counted the plastic bottles under the kitchen sink, Greta Thunberg would have me shot!

[JennyMorgan]

As regards the BA in fairness they have stated that the new toll differential is effectively just a gesture of intent and in that I believe that they are right, indeed in that they deserve support. I am no scientist but I can appreciate the gesture. Time for a consultation?  We need facts, not guesswork. Granted that I don't like the stench that some boats pump out in some quantity but is it really harming me or the world that I live in?

[rightsaidfred]

While the BA are entitled to take whatever measures they identify at a reasonable cost within the organisation to improve their performance they are not a taxation authority as such and should not be using the tolls system to try and influence how the public conduct their leisure time, the tolls are there to provide the income for the maintenance of the navigation not to penalise any one sector of its stakeholders.

Fred

[Poppy]

23 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Try as I might, I can no longer contain my frustration regarding two distinctly different issues being conjoined as one leading to misrepresentation, misinformation and in some corners , profiteering.

Diesel v Petrol v Electric when being discussed  in relation to Pollution and Climate change.

Climate change is, whilst talking about fuels, a matter of certain gasses being released into the atmosphere and the "greenhouse effect". The petrol engine is the naughty boy here. The arguments about the power stations supplying electricity and the fuels used are known and still rage, BUT, the diesel engine is almost able to be called "Your friend". The greenhouse gasses released by diesel engines are minimal when compared with petrol engines. 

Particulate pollution however is the reverse. The diesel engine is the "dirty boy on the block" with petrol this time being your friend.

So, how is this important in regards to the broads? 

I can understand the idea that banning the massive numbers of diesel cars from cities as being good for the community, yes that makes perfect sense, as does loading the price of DERV to achieve the same ends. where I fail to see the argument is the Broads Authority loading the tolls on motor craft saying it does so towards being "Carbon neutral".

Am I barking up the wrong tree here?  I don't know and stand to be corrected, but if I am correct, people need to both know AND UNDERSTAND what the real issues are, and what various organisations are trying to do.

I am all for doing whatever we can to minimise the effect the human race has on the planet, and I'm right in favour of trying to save little city children's lungs from the ravages of pollution but I feel it essential to know which action/price hike/demonstration is doing what to which.

Modern diesel engines are cleaner in all respects than petrol. Particulate filters and the additionn of 'ad blue' systems, as required by Euro 6 specs has ensured that. 

Of course, diesels generally produce less CO2  because they are far more economical. I.E. they use less fuel That means we diesel drivers effectively pay less tax per mile. I believe that's why they are so unpopular with governments. Of course, they'd never admit that....

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

6 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

While the BA are entitled to take whatever measures they identify at a reasonable cost within the organisation to improve their performance they are not a taxation authority as such and should not be using the tolls system to try and influence how the public conduct their leisure time, the tolls are there to provide the income for the maintenance of the navigation not to penalise any one sector of its stakeholders.

Fred

Hi Fred,

Yet another example of an unelected quango assuming authority it just does`nt have.

[TheQ]

Talking of boats,

Greta Thunberg, went across the atlantic, in a sailing boat, where upon the skipper flew back and some others flew across to take over the boat.

Now she's coming back, her father and a female experienced sailor flew out to add to the crew on the boat.

Meanwhile her handler has been flying back and forth writing her speeches for her. In interviews where Greta hasn't got the prepared text, she hasn't a clue..

The extiction rebellion lot have some sponsorship.. Funded by people who would make a lot of money if what they wanted come true..

 

[marshman]

I have suddenly thought of a new source of revenue to tackle growing climate change/global warming, be that the same thing or different!

Tax aviation fuel!!!

[TheQ]

it's been thought of before but they need international agreement, or aircraft will just refuel where it's cheapest (they already do to a lesser extent)

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

I have suddenly thought of a new source of revenue to tackle growing climate change/global warming, be that the same thing or different!

Tax aviation fuel!!!

Climate change is the natural progression between two eras of ice age, global warming is the natural consequence of exiting one ice age and will reverse once we turn towards the next ice age.

How about taxing all the hot air being expounded by so called experts on the matter and fining those in the media with a totally biased agenda.

Fred

[grendel]

Fred, thats ok, but we are supposed to be heading into the next ice age already, if anything its overdue, maybe global warming is real, but has been just staving off the next ice age as we speak. we will never stop climate change as that is just doing what comes naturally when it comes to planets, and nothing we can do with current technology will change that fact.

[TheLaird]

It crossed my mind that we boaters have mainly older engines. Volvo Penta, BMC, Evinrude etc.

Usually over 20 years old!  And, I will admit that the outboard on my boat is a 1978 Evinrude 35HP 2 stroke.

It smokes a little even at 50 to 1 fuel/oil. I would love a 4 stroke but I just can't afford one.

Clive.

[BroadAmbition]

It might well be 'Old' but looks in proper good condition to me

Griff

[rightsaidfred]

 

6 hours ago, grendel said:

Fred, thats ok, but we are supposed to be heading into the next ice age already, if anything its overdue, maybe global warming is real, but has been just staving off the next ice age as we speak. we will never stop climate change as that is just doing what comes naturally when it comes to planets, and nothing we can do with current technology will change that fact.

Agreed and I doubt there are many who would not accept that, the problem lies with the extreme demands being muted not just by the fanatics but in several instances by those who should have a more responsible attitude to what is realistic, all this does is distance the many who would accept reasonable steps that still allow them to manage their own lives to a sensible standard.

Fred