I would post this on your Transport Board but

[clivehinchcliffe]

I think that this should be on the forum as it is the place to post answers to such a large question


I would post this on your Transport Board but the categories on that
board are much too narrow for such a broad topic.

Electric Cars - Tesler have a range of 200 miles for their beastie,
and a more conventional saloon car in on the chocks. Not many of us
do more than 200 miles, so this can be "Off Peak" electricity, which
could increase the base load requirements.
Interesting that you should consider that if everyone used an electric car there would be an off peak supply for electrisity. i am also thinking where all this energy is coming from. perhaps we need a Global HV Grid to move power around as the Earth spins on it axis.
So when we all get in our electric cars to travel at peak periods on
off peak electricity then some form of road charging will be
required or the traffic jams will be horrific, to say nothing about
the loss of government revenue from fuel duty. I suspect Government's will tax the energy supply where ever it comes from. So do we want to continue to allow un-controlled 1 ton cars to rush around our cities. this is a good opportunity to restrict the use of cars in towns and cities ensuring that they stay on the outskirts and that collective transport is used for movment within city limits.

A longer journey than 200 miles should include a break for the
driver and a recharging point for the car, but probably not with off
peak electricity. Any journey over 100 miles should be made by train, car or locale comunity transport to the station, train and then comunity transport or car
Hydrogen Cars - Well you still have to make the hydrogen, and
whether by electrolysis or some other more complex reversible
reaction, this will still require a similar or larger amount of
electricity, and will probably be less efficient than using
Batteries. How shall we deal with places where there is no electrisity?
Electric trains will still be needed to get into the cities, - and
some of these could be Battery electric. Also Battery electric
Buses; and to recharge them plug them in at the Bus Station while
the driver has his tea. Battries are very bad at energy storage, need replacing ofton and have a major impact on the environment. The best from the point of view of performance use a non renewable resource that is in decline.

Bio-fuels are not the answer either as this will merely cause a food
shortage.
We will need all the land we have to grow trees to lock up the
Carbon and food to eat
This is not the whole storey some bio fuels have no impact on food production and provide a means of waste disposal, providing ferteliser for growing more food.

Nuclear power stations can be built to be adjustable, I am sure the
many nuclear submarines do have this feature. Move the control rods
in to reduce the output.
Not that Nuclear is the ultimate solution as there is still a lot of
waste heat which escapes and presumably contributes a little to
warming the atmosphere.
But is there enough Uranium to produce all the world's electricity.?
Nuclear waste is presumably now thought of as less of a problem than
lots of CO2 These plants can not be closed quickly enough for me they are a ticking bomb.

While Gas does produce a little less CO2 than Oil or Coal there is
still a contribution to CO2
So combined heat and power units running on Gas do not cure any
problem.
Perhaps Night Storage heaters should be preferred.
It is not just CO2 but other pollutants and putting all the eggs in one basket could have a big problem. what is required is the use of the best available localy produced sustainable energy mix.

So we are into Solar generating stations in the Desert Regions.
(Only one per cent of the Sahara desert could provide electrical
power for the whole world from concentrating solar power. ? )
Will these have a slight cooling effect on the desert and alter the
weather pattern?

Should all new housing be built with the roof line orientated east-
west to enable the maximum use of solar energy?

Or the latest proposal for achieving this output would require the
construction of 250,000 x 5 MW wind turbines across Europe and N
Africa linked by HVDC cables.
5 MW is about the power required to drive a high speed train !

This last proposal has I understand been costed, and would
apparently keep energy costs at current levels, simply because
continual investment in renewing our energy infrastucture is a
continuous process.
Surely, as this is merely a replacement for time expired carbon
technology then the additional investment required is ZERO
But what should be stressed in the alternative cost of NOT doing
anything to reduce the worlds reliance on carbon based fuels.
The biggest problem is getting action from all stake holders at the same time in a joined up way.

Thanks for your indulgence - hope I may contribute something
Thanks
Chris.

Thanks for your contribution.
Clive.

[luckyman]

Originally Posted by clivehinchcliffe

I think that this should be on the forum as it is the place to post answers to such a large question
Agreed - it's an interesting topic

I would post this on your Transport Board but the categories on that
board are much too narrow for such a broad topic.

Electric Cars - Tesler have a range of 200 miles for their beastie,
and a more conventional saloon car in on the chocks. Not many of us
do more than 200 miles, so this can be "Off Peak" electricity, which
could increase the base load requirements.
Interesting that you should consider that if everyone used an electric car there would be an off peak supply for electrisity. i am also thinking where all this energy is coming from. 'Nazi Sharks' gives some idea of the necessary numbers (plug!) http://www.claverton-energy.com/download/289/ though it depends very much on the generating technology perhaps we need a Global HV Grid to move power around as the Earth spins on it axis. Barents link plus Gregor's proposal plus work in Russia plus a Canada Greenland Iceland link gives complete northern hemisphere
So when we all get in our electric cars to travel at peak periods on
off peak electricity then some form of road charging will be
required or the traffic jams will be horrific, to say nothing about
the loss of government revenue from fuel duty. I suspect Government's will tax the energy supply where ever it comes from. So do we want to continue to allow un-controlled 1 ton cars to rush around our cities. this is a good opportunity to restrict the use of cars in towns and cities ensuring that they stay on the outskirts and that collective transport is used for movment within city limits. Road charging will not go down well; the truly annoying thing is that we used to have joined-up planning on transport within cities, these days it has become a nightmare

A longer journey than 200 miles should include a break for the
driver and a recharging point for the car, but probably not with off
peak electricity. Any journey over 100 miles should be made by train, car or locale comunity transport to the station, train and then comunity transport or car Clive to an extent I think this may be wishful thinking, in that the point-to-point practicality of the car is the reason for its success, with the notable exception of commuting
Hydrogen Cars - Well you still have to make the hydrogen, and
whether by electrolysis or some other more complex reversible
reaction, this will still require a similar or larger amount of
electricity, and will probably be less efficient than using
Batteries. How shall we deal with places where there is no electrisity?
Electric trains will still be needed to get into the cities, - and
some of these could be Battery electric. Also Battery electric
Buses; and to recharge them plug them in at the Bus Station while
the driver has his tea. Battries are very bad at energy storage, need replacing ofton and have a major impact on the environment. The best from the point of view of performance use a non renewable resource that is in decline. On the other hand they can be recycled, and for performance again please see 'Nazi Sharks'

Bio-fuels are not the answer either as this will merely cause a food
shortage.
We will need all the land we have to grow trees to lock up the
Carbon and food to eat
This is not the whole storey some bio fuels have no impact on food production and provide a means of waste disposal, providing ferteliser for growing more food. Agreed, but the temptation is always there to put them on prime agricultural land to make more profit in the case of biofuel crops. Anaerobic digestion etc is another matter

Nuclear power stations can be built to be adjustable, I am sure the
many nuclear submarines do have this feature. Move the control rods
in to reduce the output.
Not that Nuclear is the ultimate solution as there is still a lot of
waste heat which escapes and presumably contributes a little to
warming the atmosphere.
But is there enough Uranium to produce all the world's electricity.?
Nuclear waste is presumably now thought of as less of a problem than
lots of CO2 These plants can not be closed quickly enough for me they are a ticking bomb.And the economics mean we are very unlikely to get the 'throttled' type

While Gas does produce a little less CO2 than Oil or Coal there is
still a contribution to CO2
So combined heat and power units running on Gas do not cure any
problem.
Perhaps Night Storage heaters should be preferred.
It is not just CO2 but other pollutants and putting all the eggs in one basket could have a big problem. what is required is the use of the best available localy produced sustainable energy mix.

So we are into Solar generating stations in the Desert Regions.
(Only one per cent of the Sahara desert could provide electrical
power for the whole world from concentrating solar power. ? )
Will these have a slight cooling effect on the desert and alter the
weather pattern? No is the simple answer

Should all new housing be built with the roof line orientated east-
west to enable the maximum use of solar energy? Interesting one - further debate??

Or the latest proposal for achieving this output would require the
construction of 250,000 x 5 MW wind turbines across Europe and N
Africa linked by HVDC cables.
5 MW is about the power required to drive a high speed train !

This last proposal has I understand been costed, and would
apparently keep energy costs at current levels, simply because
continual investment in renewing our energy infrastucture is a
continuous process.
Surely, as this is merely a replacement for time expired carbon
technology then the additional investment required is ZERO
But what should be stressed in the alternative cost of NOT doing
anything to reduce the worlds reliance on carbon based fuels.
The biggest problem is getting action from all stake holders at the same time in a joined up way.Yep

Thanks for your indulgence - hope I may contribute something
Thanks
Chris.

Thanks for your contribution.
Clive.

Also many thanks, George