Why it isn't easy being green

Yes, please, if Tesla would like to give me one
(Image from Wikipedia)

As someone with real concern for the environment, I am convinced that electric cars are the future, and the sooner we can get rid of petrol and diesel, the better. When I was younger, my fantasy car was an Aston Martin - now it's a Tesla.

However, as an official green heretic, I have to point out that, like almost all environmental decisions, it's a bit more complex than it first appears. We need to apply logic as well as emotion. Electric cars (and trains, for that matter) are great in terms of emissions - provided they use electricity that itself is produced in an environmentally friendly fashion. It has been pointed out that in Germany, which has an aggressive 'get rid of petrol cars by 2030' policy, there could be a resultant increase in carbon emissions.

The trouble is that Germany is pretty well incapable of being totally green in its electricity production by 2030, because of its irrational decision to close its nuclear power plants. What about wind and solar? They're coming on - but nowhere near fast enough. In fact, Germany has had to slow down its wind expansion because the existing wind supply is already proving disruptive to the grid because of its irregularity. The more you depend on wind, and to an extent solar, the greater need there is for supply that can be switched in quickly to cover troughs in generation.

As a result of the short-sightedness of their supply policy, if Germany does achieve 100 per cent electric cars by 2030 its carbon emissions will go up, due to the extra emissions from the dirty generation that will need to be used to support it.

I am not saying they should hold back on the electric vehicles - on the contrary, I hope we take a similar view of pushing the move to electric vehicles in the UK. (And reversing the terrible decision to cut short the electrification of GWR's trains before reaching Bristol Temple Meads.) But such a policy needs to go hand-in-hand with a transfer of generation to non-emitting sources - which at the moment almost certainly means having more nuclear in the mix as well as more wind and solar.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog