Electric cars.

Very early on yes. We couldn't have lived here then. But then there was also a period when there was virtually none. Plants had evolved and started producing lignin, which is the plant protein that makes wood all woody. This was almost a disaster for life on earth as primitive trees were growing, consuming co2, then dying, but not rotting because nothing at the time could breakdown lignin. Diminishing co2 meant plants were struggling, and of course that meant primitive animal life was endangered. Fewer animal organisms meant less co2 leading to a vicious circle of doom for the planet. Lucky for us that a fungi evolved in the nick of time that was able to breakdown lignin, releasing all the carbon locked up in dead wood back into the atmosphere.

The key point is that nature, over millions of years, found a balance that worked very well. Then in just 300 years, since the start of the industrial revolution, we've managed to upset that natural balance that took many million of years and several major extinction events to get to.

Nobody in their right mind is saying we should remove all co2 from the air. That's unachievable, which is a good thing, because we absolutely need co2 in the air. But this fact is often taken and misconstrued by climate deniers to mean more co2 is good. We need co2, but it needs to be in balance that nature worked out over many millennia. It's arrogant to think that us humans, who only realised in the last about 100 years that air is multiple different elements can do better than millions and millions of years of the planet finding it's natural equilibrium. Most people who have no interest in physics can't even explain how different gasses interact with different bandwidths of light, yet seem to know everything about climate change and how nature works.

 

Quite right; if you go back far enough. However; current levels (c375 ppm) are the highest for the past 650000 years.
See here: A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org

 

I still think the balance is upset by too many humans on the planet and we are increasing by 200,000 every day.

 

For more info on Lasham gas storage see here About Us

 

The local chemical works round here have been storing some very nasty gases in natural cavities just under the sea bed for years. They have to monitor everything 24/7. They monitor the integrity of the rock, they even calculate the weight of sea water holding it down and take into account tides, and changes in the prevailing currents. One engineer when I worked at the site told me, it's a good job the UK typically doesn't get very big earthquakes because if it cracks up we'll all be dead in seconds.

Pumping gas into caverns is only half the issue. When storing gas that we intend to use, you don't have to worry about what happens when you run out of such storage space because you're constantly using it up. Storing waste gases is a different matter. By definition, it's waste, it has no use, so sooner or later you need to find more storage, or stop producing waste.

With carbon capture there's an additional problem. It's pretty hard to fully separate the co2 from everything else. When the local works pumps it's poison under the sea, they just shove the lot down there. Same when storing natural gas for fuel.

If someone was to come up with a plan to make liquid hydrocarbon fuel from co2 and green hydrogen, that could solve a lot of problems, but nobody will invest in that as long as governments around the world are phasing out hydrocarbon fuels. It's a shame, because it would potentially solve a few of today's problems. One being that hydrogen as a fuel is difficult to store, whereas hydrocarbons that are stable in liquid form at typical temperatures would be much easier to store. I don't know the chemistry involved, that would take cleverer people than me, but I know that petrol is a hydrocarbon fuel, 'hydrocarbon' simply referring to a molecule that contains hydrogen atoms and carbon atoms.

 

Pumping it into disused oil wells seems appropriate, as that is where most of it came from in the first place!
Perhaps this is the way to go: 44.01 - The Earthshot Prize

 

The key difference being that the oil that was in there had no ambitions to fill the atmosphere. Some huge seismic event releasing oil would be an ecological disaster if a lot of it escaped. But if the same volume of co2 were to suddenly escape, good look trying to contain it.

 

That happened early 2022 at Charnock Richard services both North and South bound, think it was caused by a storm. I would of thought most motorway services would have some sort of backup power supply. I know in some US states it was made law that fuel stations near and on major evacuation routes had to have a backup power source.

It was on BBC news this morning regarding the queues that have been experienced by EV owners over December. Many tesla owners see it as an attack by the media at Tesla owners only, considering the tesla is arguably the most popular EV on UK roads and that you can now charge any make of EV at Tesla charging stations proves the infrastructure is not keeping pace. Going by social media one of the main reasons people choose a Tesla was because of the Tesla only charging stations and that it should still be Tesla only.

 

Hi,

I've just copied this from our local paper;

"All newly built homes and buildings are now required to have an electric car charge point installed. The law on installing charge points also applies to new-build supermarkets, workplaces, and other buildings undergoing large renovations."

Why not go the whole way and supply a new EV with all new homes built?

It seems these days everyone other than motorists are allowed on public roads.



The way forward; exclude cars from towns and cities rather than accommodate them with better and more parking. Sales of plywood must be up.

Kind regards, Colin.

 

I'm sure we are heading for parking wars in the future.
With parking spaces, or at least a percentage of parking spaces having have charging at some point the balance is going tip in favour of the EV, I just wonder how many spaces that will leave for ICE cars.

 

Hi,

It makes me wonder pete where things will end up; my wife and I haven't driven into Huddersfield town center or in fact any town or city center for years avoiding them like the plague; we shop out of town and are welcome as car owners at our local free parking retail parks and supermarkets; we buy more and more online too.

If ICE vehicles are being banned from towns and cities due to pollution then why can't all electric cars be allowed in; locally the big push is for pedestrians and cyclists which is fine and going to be even better for them because there's going to be masses of empty space as the stores keep closing; it doesn't bother me in the least because we travel by car and avoid anywhere we're not welcome.

I admit I'm totally biased because our car and running costs are expensive so I've no intention of leaving the car at home to travel on polluting double decker often empty diesel buses or trying to cycle on our mountainous terrain at the age of 75.

Kind regards, Colin.

 

Town centres are dying, and they cant work out why?
It costs the earth to park, that's if you can find a space.
Not heard anything good about using the parking apps, that the council and other car park owners have forced upon us, either.

I've not visited my town centre in years, I avoid it like the plague.

Oh but you have to drive through it in order to cross the river unless you want a 30 mile detour or use a couple of single track bridges that the Romans chucked up.

 

They figured this out in more forward thinking European countries decades ago.

Even in parts of the USA where the car is king.

Study after study, trial after trial, all produce the same result. Easier travel, and more commercially successful towns, if done properly.

The town centres are dying because in many cases there's no easy way to get into them. Residential planning in the UK always puts people miles away, too far to walk. Cycling is a non starter because there's just too much traffic for it to be safe, and driving doesn't really work because that's what everyone is doing, filling up the roads, every available parking space, and the pavements. And if you do get there, it's not a pleasant experience because there's so much traffic it takes you ages just to cross a road.

Out of town shopping complexes are designed for cars. Even they are a nightmare because being designed for cars, and filled with drivers who think the rules don't apply in car parks, you have to navigate the free for all as you walk a hundred metres across the car park from the only space you could find to the actual shops.

In parts of Europe, they solved this decades ago by putting in good infrastructure and rules favouring bicycles and pedestrians, and adding into the mix good affordable well planned public transport. The result is actually an increase in spending I'm the towns, and greater mobility for everyone. In Amsterdam they've been so successful with it they've actually had to impose rules to try to cut down on tourists because it's become too busy.

I won't go into great detail about this. There's plenty more info on the internet if you look beyond the publishers that want to push an agenda, and look for more objective, factual content.