Bongo Fury

Oh dear.

http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/t ... bj9VLdyIKc

And there was me thinking I'd go electric after the Bongo. Discuss?

Surely the only thing after Bongo is a harp, halo, and a fluffy cloud to sit on.

All will change when we get nuclear fusion power stations. Zero waste (well, a bit of helium) and an abundance of what they burn (hydrogen )
Unfortunately, as a planet we spend more on dog grooming than developing it.

Bob wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:39 am Surely the only thing after Bongo is a harp, halo, and a fluffy cloud to sit on.

But does all that generate even more CO2 than an electric car?

Tony x wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:49 pm All will change when we get nuclear fusion power stations. Zero waste (well, a bit of helium) and an abundance of what they burn (hydrogen )
Unfortunately, as a planet we spend more on dog grooming than developing it.

Very true Tony.

I think we may be done for.

EVI did have a look a bit further into the study and it's completely one-sided, comparing the CO2 from the mining and processing etc that goes into the manufacture of the EV battery but not considering the CO2 emitted from exploring for oil, drilling oil, refining oil, shipping oil around the globe etc that are associated with the operation and manufacture of diesel vehicles.

Alkers wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:24 am EVI did have a look a bit further into the study and it's completely one-sided, comparing the CO2 from the mining and processing etc that goes into the manufacture of the EV battery but not considering the CO2 emitted from exploring for oil, drilling oil, refining oil, shipping oil around the globe etc that are associated with the operation and manufacture of diesel vehicles.

Yes I think (as ever) the press has twisted the truth with the misleading headline. The beef of the researchers findings seems to lie in this bit of the article:

The German researchers, therefore, take issue with the fact that European officials view electric vehicles as zero-emission ones. They note further that the EU target of 59 grams of CO2 per km by 2030 corresponds to a “technically unrealistic” consumption of 2.2 litres of diesel or 2.6 litres of gas per 100 kms.

These new limits pressure German and other European car manufacturers into switching massively to electric vehicles whereas, the researchers feel, it would have been preferable to opt for methane engines, “whose emissions are one-third less than those of diesel motors.”

My personal question would be. Is a diesel car that is now 25 years old (i.e. no replacement had to be built in all those years), does 5k rural miles a year, and allows its owner to have holidays without jetting abroad (and several other things), threaten the environment more than an electric car of more limited use and that lasts 10 years.

P.S. I say this as someone who has been interested in electric cars for 40+ years so have a foot in each camp really

I see the study it refers to is called "Electric Vehicles are not a Panacea for Climate Change" and I think that's correct to a degree - certainly, if all vehicles were swapped for EV's it wouldn't reverse the effects on it's own.

Not sure that LI ION batteries are the answer either, with Lithium being a finite resource / supply and demand and all that. But I do like the idea of zero emissions at ground level.. I live & work in London and cycle in to town every working day and it's not nice!

I have this vague dream of converting the Bongo to electric one day, I haven't looked at the technicalities in any depth but it occurred to me that possibly the motor itself would fit under the bonnet with the batteries under the seats. Of course, cost at the mo would be astronomically high, it's not so much the motor (or even motors) but rather the battery cost - there is a co doing old VW camper conversions and the longest range option starts at 69K and that only gives you 200 miles!!

Of course, in the longer term you would think you could pay extra for EV rated EHU at camp sites etc..

https://edubconversions.co.uk/2019/02/1 ... rom-69020/

I have read that if we "clean" the air of particulants, climate change rate will double as much less light and heat
is reflected and thus absorbed.

The take up for electric will be slow, people who are well off will be ok and can buy into electric cars. The cost of electricty has already escalated in the last couple of years.

I really hate to say it but I cannot see a solution from a lay man perspective, I don't think science will resolve this one, we don't have time and need governments to implement every possible option today to even have a chance. We can minimise damage personally but getting everyone on board globally seems like mission impossible. I want to be proven wrong of course.

In addition methane emissions from Siberian perma frost bogs are releasing gas at rates that are immense. I read a statistic that an area the size of France and Germany was possibly releasing 100,000 tonnes of methane a day (and this way 2005) Here it is online:

Look at the lake picture, mysterious and beautiful and yet very scary.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/podcasts ... 62.article

Strange innit- we're fracking for gas but i'm not aware we're looking to capture and use as fuel the methane gas being released and that left unused will be 23 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

I think the lack of impotus to capture this gas is because it is impossible to do so, it is extremely widely spread and across natural landscapes
rather than accumulated in one big underground reservoir that can be exploited or captured etc. It is hard to "tap into" an area the size of France and Germany. It is coming up across a vast range of area out of all peat bogs at relatively low concentration compared to a underground gas/oil field.

There is a similar crisis on its way when Greenland de ices (seems it already is)

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2019/0 ... 546532876/