EV (electric vehicle) News and Discussion

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › EV (electric vehicle) News and Discussion

1 | ... | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | ... | 771

Awrrr
19068 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16308

Lifetime subscriber

#2187017 25-Feb-2019 17:49

I just don't think your coal barrel is a particularly convincing example of anything. As far as the drilling 'ban' goes, that has already been done to death by government critics. You know perfectly well that the ban only applies to new exploration, not existing permits. In other words, there is no ban. Quit obfuscating.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2187024 25-Feb-2019 18:12

Rikkitic:

I just don't think your coal barrel is a particularly convincing example of anything. As far as the drilling 'ban' goes, that has already been done to death by government critics. You know perfectly well that the ban only applies to new exploration, not existing permits. In other words, there is no ban. Quit obfuscating.

It does make forecasting for infrastructure renewal pretty difficult when you have no capacity for future additional revenue and compressed timelines for yields.

Delphinus

611 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 274

#2187103 25-Feb-2019 21:25

We need to stop extracting oil and gas at some point. Why not stop new exploration now? More incentive to start the long overdue transition.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2187112 25-Feb-2019 21:47

Delphinus:
We need to stop extracting oil and gas at some point. Why not stop new exploration now? More incentive to start the long overdue transition.

Because the main problem with oil and gas occurs when you burn it. You are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that wasn't previously in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter which country the oil was drilled in. Or which country it is burned in. The harm to the planet is exactly the same.

Therefore we need to burn less oil and gas. And make sure that we actually do burn less. And not simply get other countries to burn it on our behalf. And of course not burn extra coal, to offset burning less oil and gas.

If the government was actually serious. They would have also banned the import of oil and gas. Now that would give a quick reduction in emissions.

But the government doesn't want higher petrol prices. As they claimed that petrol prices are already too high. So we will just import more oil, and give our money to Saudi Arabia and similar countries instead.

Delphinus

611 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 274

#2187113 25-Feb-2019 21:49

So when do you suggest is a better time to stop extraction and move the country off oil and gas as an energy source?

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2187121 25-Feb-2019 22:37

Rikkitic:
I just don't think your coal barrel is a particularly convincing example of anything. As far as the drilling 'ban' goes, that has already been done to death by government critics. You know perfectly well that the ban only applies to new exploration, not existing permits. In other words, there is no ban. Quit obfuscating.

Since coal is pretty much one of the dirtiest fossil fuels. It causes alot of secondary pollution in addition to carbon emissions. And also presents alot of safety hazards in mining, transport, storage etc. And yet it is sold retail to anyone who wants to buy it, no Questions asked.

I definitely dont need coal for a barrel fire. And I can't think of why any end consumers need or should be able to buy coal. I think that buying coal should require some sort of permit. Where it is checked that the intended use can't easily be carried out by a cleaner alternative.

Another common example is proposals for emissions testing of existing cars on the roads. There will be some low income people, who can't afford a lower emissions car or an EV. And their job depends on them being able to drive their car.

The Labour party look at economic considerations as well, sure they are not perfect (but National are definitely not perfect either). Labour are definitely aware that they cannot just crash the economy. Even if it would help the environment. As economic growth and taxes are neccessary to provide quality healthcare, education, and social services. Yet it is also very important that we urgently reduce carbon emissions.

But we can't reduce carbon emissions to zero, without going back to a caveman society, so that is not an option. Yet doing nothing about carbon emissions is also not an option. So we need to find a middle ground. So that is why it is important to ask the question, what method will give the biggest emissions reduction for the least cost?

My barell fire - No reason at all why I can't burn wood instead. The places that sell coal also sell firewood (if I'm unable to obtain firewood elsewhere). Pretty much zero extra expense for me to burn wood. And the barrel fire is now carbon neutral (or close to it).

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2187127 25-Feb-2019 23:10

Delphinus:
So when do you suggest is a better time to stop extraction and move the country off oil and gas as an energy source?

We need to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP.

But as for extracting them, we should follow the same model as Norway. Keep on drilling and extracting. But export the oil. And then use the profits to reduce our domestic carbon emissions.

My understanding is that Norway has both the highest % of renewable electricity generation, and the highest per capita EV ownership. While Norwegians still enjoy excellent social services and a thriving economy.

NZ is such a small player in the world fossil fuel markets. That we will never be able to influence world pricing. So if we dont export, we will only be hurting ourselves.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2187159 26-Feb-2019 07:14

Aredwood:

Capitalism isn't perfect. But it is far better than the alternatives.

I didn't say capitalism was bad. I said unchecked capitalism was bad.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2187259 26-Feb-2019 09:46

https://insideevs.com/electric-peugeot-e208-detail-specs-images-videos/

Electric 208 coming this year. 300km range, doesn't look bad.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2187587 26-Feb-2019 14:32

Aredwood:As for capitalism, what non capitalist countries have better environments and living standards than capiltist countries?

All of them. Just ask any homeless person.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2187591 26-Feb-2019 14:41

Aredwood:But as for extracting them, we should follow the same model as Norway. Keep on drilling and extracting. But export the oil. And then use the profits to reduce our domestic carbon emissions.

How does exporting oil or gas help the global situation? It still gets burned on the same planet.

This is the same thinking that went into nuclear power generation decades ago: generate the power locally and export the problems like waste disposal. When you take into account the true cost of waste disposal, nuclear isn't economic. In the same way, if you take into account the true cost of CO2 emissions, oil and gas aren't really economic either.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#2187595 26-Feb-2019 14:48

Aredwood:
Delphinus:

So when do you suggest is a better time to stop extraction and move the country off oil and gas as an energy source?

We need to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP.

But as for extracting them, we should follow the same model as Norway. Keep on drilling and extracting. But export the oil. And then use the profits to reduce our domestic carbon emissions.

But that's a selfish option..... if you believe that we need to stop burning ASAP then you need to support halting extraction ASAP too.

Emissions are a Global problem, the atmosphere does not care whether you burn oil or gas here or there,

Digging up oil and exporting it and then running round in electric cars is not really a model that can be followed by the rest of the world,

Its ends up as a giant Ponzi scheme....

Delphinus

611 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 274

#2187598 26-Feb-2019 14:49

Aredwood:

But as for extracting them, we should follow the same model as Norway. Keep on drilling and extracting. But export the oil. And then use the profits to reduce our domestic carbon emissions.

My understanding is that Norway has both the highest % of renewable electricity generation, and the highest per capita EV ownership. While Norwegians still enjoy excellent social services and a thriving economy.

Norway has the highest per capita EV ownership because they have huge taxes on ICE cars and huge subsidies on EV's. EV's don't pay tax or VAT or toll charges. As a result the purchase price of an EV is better than an ICE, as well as lower running costs.

Erik Figenbaum, chief research engineer at Norway’s Institute of Transport Economics, said an imported VW e-Golf 36kWh cost £28,285 before taxes, far more than the petrol-fuelled Golf 1.2L at £19,867. After the Norwegian tax system has done its work, the figures look very different. The petrol version incurs £5,866 in registration tax, while VAT at 25% adds another £4,966, lifting the purchase price to a hefty £30,699. That makes the petrol car £2,414 dearer.

They also pay high taxes, and enjoy excellent social services as a result.

I'm not saying that their oil extraction hasn't made a huge difference to the country in the past, but current EV ownership is not directly related to them exporting oil.

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#2187634 26-Feb-2019 15:56

wellygary: We need to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP.

Negative.

We need to build an alternate ASAP.

If you provide an alternate that is cheaper and/or better, people will use it.

If you want to turn off the carbon with no alternate in place and literally leave millions of people out in the cold, then nobody will listen to you. Gas is less bad than coal. No it is not the end solution, but it is a practical step in the right direction. If the exploration/drilling/generation ban was accompanied by a replacement renewable incentive or renewable construction project, I wouldn't be critical, but it wasn't, so I am. As it stands, it's blind ideology, that is doomed to fail, not environmental leadership that is bound to succeed.

This is why I label the hydro and wind haters pseudo-environmentalists. Their attitudes perpetuate the use of carbon and creation of pollution.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19068 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16308

Lifetime subscriber

#2187640 26-Feb-2019 16:08

I think the above is just a leetle beet deceptive. Unfortunately, there are a lot of arguments like this.

Alternatives do exist. They exist already. What does not yet exist on a suitable scale, is infrastructure. The world is built around cars fuelled by petrol. If you keep drilling for oil, you just encourage that. The way to force change is to establish a deadline. Saying no more oil in 30 years is hardly catching people by surprise. There is plenty of time to move to alternatives. This simple example is just about cars and petrol, but the same principle applies across the board to coal, gas and everything else. You don't get an alcoholic to stop drinking by offering her another drink.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | ... | 771