|
|
Post by cernunnos on Mar 15, 2024 9:02:24 GMT 1
Luckily there is a border that stops pollution between Ukraine and the rest of the continent .  Non-conform polluting London cars can now be sent there ! Curiouser and curiouser!
|
|
Aardvark
Non-gamer
Living in soggy 22 and still wondering what's going on.
Posts: 2,173
|
Post by Aardvark on Mar 15, 2024 11:12:34 GMT 1
Which aligns perfectly with the notion that once everyone in UK is on a bicycle instead of in a car, the planet will be saved regardless of how many coal fired power stations are being built elsewhere in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 15, 2024 11:59:31 GMT 1
I don't think that pollution is high in the thoughts of Ukraine at the moment. They have other things to address.
|
|
|
|
Post by ForumUser2 on Mar 15, 2024 14:23:16 GMT 1
Generally speaking it's wise to develop a technology before imposing it on the public. Unfortunately in an attempt to appear ecologically sympathetic this government has introduced legislation requiring that all new cars will be electric. Firstly, battery technology is a long way short of replacing hydrocarbons; secondly, is there the manufacturing capacity; thirdly, there isn't anywhere near enough generating capacity in the grid.
But, most importantly, these expensive and unnecessary vehicles require huge amounts of energy in their production and, 10 years down the line, present an enormous environmental threat from battery disposal.
All of which is moot until China, India, Russia etc stop generating incalculable amounts of dirty, CO2-laden pollution from power generation, vehicles, factories etc. And countries stop chopping down trees and concreting over rainforest.
It's really more about self-righteousness than a real influence on global air quality.
As for Ukraine? I think they might appreciate a few more tanks, missiles etc than a load of old clunkers.
|
|
Aardvark
Non-gamer
Living in soggy 22 and still wondering what's going on.
Posts: 2,173
|
Post by Aardvark on Mar 15, 2024 16:49:55 GMT 1
You speak the truth. Don't plan on a career in politics. You're not cut out for it.
|
|
exile
Member
Massif Central
Posts: 2,765
|
Post by exile on Mar 15, 2024 18:55:14 GMT 1
Russia came 36th and 31st respectively. They come 4th regarding nuclear behind the US, China and France.
Just a small correction Russia is 5th. I missed little old Japan.
Please ignore I have just made a complete cods of things. I will repost the gist or should that be jest of what I posted last night. |
|
exile
Member
Massif Central
Posts: 2,765
|
Post by exile on Mar 16, 2024 1:08:14 GMT 1
I should have included the position of France in that analysis
8th in wind
12th in solar
|
|
exile
Member
Massif Central
Posts: 2,765
|
Post by exile on Mar 16, 2024 10:41:29 GMT 1
Generally speaking it's wise to develop a technology before imposing it on the public. Unfortunately in an attempt to appear ecologically sympathetic this government has introduced legislation requiring that all new cars will be electric. Firstly, battery technology is a long way short of replacing hydrocarbons; secondly, is there the manufacturing capacity; thirdly, there isn't anywhere near enough generating capacity in the grid. But, most importantly, these expensive and unnecessary vehicles require huge amounts of energy in their production and, 10 years down the line, present an enormous environmental threat from battery disposal. All of which is moot until China, India, Russia etc stop generating incalculable amounts of dirty, CO2-laden pollution from power generation, vehicles, factories etc. And countries stop chopping down trees and concreting over rainforest. It's really more about self-righteousness than a real influence on global air quality. As for Ukraine? I think they might appreciate a few more tanks, missiles etc than a load of old clunkers. There is an interesting about face between the first and third paragraphs. The eco warriors are too quick to complain about the use of coal in India and China without appreciating that they need these sources of energy precisely because they are not yet at a position where they have developed the technology to the extent needed to maintain energy supplies for now and the near future. These comments may not apply to Putinville. To perhaps set the record straight: The worlds largest producer of solar energy is China. India comes fourth, France 12th, UK 16th and Russia 36th. The worlds largest producer of wind energy is China. India comes 6th, UK 4th, France 8th and Russia 31st. On Nuclear, Russia is 5th Closer to home we see similar pragmatism wrapped up in political one-upmanship. The Tories have approved a whole new set of North Sea drilling contracts. Labour disapprove but will not reverse the decision. Why? Simply because they realise that in order to get the UK and world at large to a position where power can be created by greener means, it will need new sources of gas and oil. (There are other reasons of course.) We see similar issues with phasing out of gas and oil boilers in the UK and stopping the sale of new ICE cars being pushed back. Simply put the development of alternative energy sources and the distribution of electricity is not sufficiently developed. Apologies for screwing up my post from last night - note to self: Edit and Qoute are not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by cernunnos on Mar 16, 2024 14:09:51 GMT 1
There is plenty of oil and gas in the world without drilling new wells in the North Sea.
I presume that the reason for the decision to push ahead with new drilling will be the tax income that will be produced by the results of that drilling.
The oil and gas will be sold on the open market by the oil companies that produce it.
The UK now imports more oil from the USA than any other country, it used to be Norway.
Interesting that Boris just visited Venezuela , that has the largest oil reserves in the world ?
|
|
exile
Member
Massif Central
Posts: 2,765
|
Post by exile on Mar 16, 2024 16:55:37 GMT 1
And there you touch on the reasons why local production is desired. The three big reserves that are only partially tapped are Venezuela as you say, Russia and Iran. I don't think a free world state would be comfortable relying on those resources. I am not sure that given the US is becoming it seems more and more self centred that a long term US supply is as secure as we might like.
You are right that the oil will be sold on the world market. The reasons for this are rather complex but essentially oil comes in all sorts of qualities from thin clean liquid like Brent and West Texas crude, through to thick almost tar like sludge (for want of a better description) from some parts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Refineries are constructed to handle a particular mix of these materials. Too thick and the equipment gets gummed up. Too thin and worst case scenario, there might be a lack of containment (posh phraseology for a severe leak with all the risks that carries.) The balance when designing the plant is based on cost ( light crudes are more expensive whereas viscose crudes are cheaper but then need to be kept hot (= cost) to keep them fluid) and availability. Many refineries are set up to run about the mid-point of the extremes. They do have some flexibility but only within defined limits.
In a sense gas is not so widely marketable. It is brought ashore by pipeline and without a liquefaction plant* it can only be transferred by pipeline. There is an extensive European network but essentially UK exports would be, in the first instance, to Ireland (which is a dead end on the network), Norway (reverse the normal flow) or the French/Belgian border. Nevertheless world prices will apply.
* I don't think there is such a plant for producing LNG for bulk sale anywhere in Europe.
|
|
