Global Warming

[Davkaus]

Quote

 

New research looking at London traffic trends for 2021 shows that CO₂ emissions from traffic were cut by 5%, while particulate matter (PM) emissions fell by 40% and NOx emissions were reduced by almost 54%. London's Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) was launched in Spring 2019 and expanded in autumn 2021.  Meanwhile, February saw updates about the implementation of new regulations intended to cut air pollution in several English cities.

The annual TomTom Traffic Index, a report detailing London traffic trends throughout 2021, shows CO2 emissions reduced by 5%, while particulate matter emissions fell by 40% and NOx emissions were reduced by almost 54% in the capital.

For the first time, TomTom's annual Traffic Index used traffic data and a methodology devised by academics from Graz University of Technology, to measure the environmental cost of London’s congestion.   

In 2021 alone the index showed that 14.8 megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 was emitted due to the capital’s road traffic, of which 15% (2.2Mt) was a direct result of congestion. London’s average CO₂ emissions during a free-flow traffic day were 29,100t, while a congested traffic day caused this figure to rise to 48,300t. 

An earlier study published in 2021 by Imperial College found modest improvements in nitrogen dioxide levels in London following the ULEZ introduction but that other long-term measures had contributed more to improved air quality in the capital. The Imperial study suggested that ULEZ-type measures work best when combined with a broader set of policies that reduce emissions across sectors like bus and taxi retrofitting, support for active and public transport.

 

https://www.zemo.org.uk/news-events/news,study-suggests-londons-ulez-contributed-to-emissions-cuts-as-other-cities-p_4353.htm#:~:text=New research looking at London,were reduced by almost 54%.

Quote

London’s ULEZ reduced the city’s nitrogen dioxide levels by a few per cent during the first few weeks of its implementation.

This is according to a study by Imperial College London researchers who say their findings highlight that ULEZs are not a silver bullet and that sustained improvements in air pollution require multiple measures.

Between 2016 and 2020, the number of Londoners living in areas with illegally high levels of nitrogen dioxide fell by 94 per cent, and alongside this there were other reductions in London’s air pollution. New research from Imperial has found that changes in air pollution around the introduction of the ULEZ in April 2019 were small in comparison to these longer-term improvements.

The researchers used publicly available air quality data to measure changes in pollution in the twelve-week period from 25 February 2019, before the ULEZ was introduced, to 20 May 2019, after it had been implemented. They controlled for the effects of weather variations, and then used statistical analysis to look for and quantify changes in pollution.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/231894/london-pollution-improved-with-evidence-small/

TL;DR, doesn't fix all problems by itself, but it's a contributing factor, and plays a part in a broader attempt to reduce air pollution

[Davkaus]

28 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

 

But yeah its nit helping environment its just making the poor poorer.

Why do you think it isn't helping?

Quote

The thing with the cars is at the moment its older cars but do you think its stops there? They will slowly reduce the age so for example its 10 now then be 8 then 5 and so on. Who can afford to get a new car every 5 years?

Have you been listening to communist hating conspiracy theorists again?

Seriously though, we're less than a decade away from new ICE cars being banned, so I'd imagine during the 30s, we'll be seeing a fee for anyone still driving polluting cars in built up areas

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Why do you think it isn't helping?

Have you been listening to communist hating conspiracy theorists again?

Seriously though, we're less than a decade away from new ICE cars being banned, so I'd imagine during the 30s, we'll be seeing a fee for anyone still driving polluting cars in built up areas

As i say its not helping because we have other polluting factors in the country. Its hitting the poor yet again. Quite suprised that alot of people are in favour of them here when alot of posters are constantly criticising the government for the cost of living (rightly so). Yet this is another shit show and people turn a blind eye. The timings extremely poor after our lovely mayor decided to also extend the congest charge its almost 24/7 now.

Although i think places like central london where this a tube station near enough every corner i can get that one. But when your doing ulez all over london even the out skirts where the transport links are poor in comparison  its shit really shit. 

[MakemineVanilla]

On 06/12/2022 at 13:08, Davkaus said:

Seriously though, we're less than a decade away from new ICE cars being banned, so I'd imagine during the 30s, we'll be seeing a fee for anyone still driving polluting cars in built up areas.

Here's an interesting video from Harry Metcalfe on EVs (warning to Musk haters, he is quite complimentary about Tesla)

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by MakemineVanilla

[MakemineVanilla]

 

[Chindie]

Is it possible to have a popular 'traffic calming/emissions zone' thing?

[Xann]

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2022/2022-provisionally-warmest-year-on-record-for-uk

[Davkaus]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

Is it possible to have a popular 'traffic calming/emissions zone' thing?

Absolutely not, because people are selfish, and they want nice things, and want better air quality, and want people to have better health, but also...They're kind of in a rush. Where people's actions and the consequences are abstract or separated enough they just don't think about it. It's awful that these dolphins are being maimed by waste in the ocean, but it's not like it was my jagged can that hurt it.

I think most people are well-meaning but just have the out of sight, out of mind approach. Not everyone though, if you had up a big electronic sign in some of these areas similar to the "your speed is", that magically knew your cars emissions and the emission data and demographics of the local area and could output "Driving past this school has given 1 child asthma. It's Thomas. Here's a photo of him. He's going to die 7 years prematurely", I bet some people would still keep taking that **** route.

[villakram]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2022/2022-provisionally-warmest-year-on-record-for-uk

There are significant issues with the 2022 number due to its proximity to airplane activity on that particular day at that particular time. The 38C ish boundary appears to be valid though, even if we ought to be concerned by the increasing encroachment of concrete jungles on the measuring device locations.

[sidcow]

19 minutes ago, villakram said:

There are significant issues with the 2022 number due to its proximity to airplane activity on that particular day at that particular time. The 38C ish boundary appears to be valid though, even if we ought to be concerned by the increasing encroachment of concrete jungles on the measuring device locations.

Even by your own standards this is brilliant. I can only applaud and watch on in wonder. 

[Davkaus]

The concrete jungle of rural Lincolnshire?

[MakemineVanilla]

 

[Xann]

The procession of stupid words removed continues.

[Davkaus]

Every serious conversation on EVs I've ever heard talks about the cars still running on some fossil fuel generation on the grid. 

The lithium problem is a real one though, there are predicted to be some shortages by 2030 as EVs ramp up, which is going to make these vehicles even more out of reach for a lot of people

[Xann]

If only the amount of effort put into knowingly dead end technologies, to keep everyone going back to the pumps, had been put into superior electrolytes.

The current situation has been engineered by the fat fingered few over decades.

People are stupid.

[Xann]

Look at the industry that's funding a campaign of disinformation whilst poisoning the World for your children. That's funding Putin's war, that war in turn is being exploited to gouge nations trying to heat their homes, with the Tory filth here happy accomplices, stuffing more billions of taxpayers' money into tax swerving offshore coffers.

You don't need a crystal ball for this, just a modicum of critical and linear thinking.

If you care about your kids? TRY F**KING HARDER.

[Xann]

Government adverts telling you they're giving you money to 'help with your heating bills' is the definition of pissing on you and telling you it's raining.

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

Every serious conversation on EVs I've ever heard talks about the cars still running on some fossil fuel generation on the grid. 

The lithium problem is a real one though, there are predicted to be some shortages by 2030 as EVs ramp up, which is going to make these vehicles even more out of reach for a lot of people

Even though the grid is moving further and further away from fossil fuels each passing minute.

And like it's a good excuse anyway.  So why use this vehicle that's still powered 60% by fossil fuel (probably created from Gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels) when I can keep using my car that's burning 100% of a dirtier fossil fuel that's also been transported in terribly polluting diesel powered ships across the ocean and transported across the country in diesel burning tankers after a dirty refining process.

Yes, those cars using 60% and reducing gas burned electricity are worthless.

Lithium will be solved.  Battery technology is pushing ahead rapidly.  Lithium is almost at the end of it's life.  it cannot be made much more efficient and is too expensive.  Lithium battery makers are constantly doing what they can to reduce the lithium but eventually new technologies will take over.  Solid state batteries are already hitting the market and will grow to dominate.   They are FAR more energy dense (so massively increase range or have a much smaller battery for the same range), will be much cheaper to make once they take off, use far less rare metals and charge in a fraction of the time.

This isn't pie in the sky, far future technology, solid state is already in the hands of car manufacturers now and will be on the market in the next year.  They'll be expensive for a few years till production ramps up then they'll be much cheaper than lithium batteries.

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by sidcow

[foreveryoung]

Most people buy EVs to save money not to save the planet. If they continue to sell electricity at a premium and at a extortionate cost at fuel stations, in cities, people will stop buying them. Most company car drivers also buy them for the tax saving not to do their bit for the planet, an when this tax goes up which is inevitable they will go back to the fuel guzzlers. 

 

[sidcow]

10 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Most people buy EVs to save money not to save the planet. If they continue to sell electricity at a premium and at a extortionate cost at fuel stations, in cities, people will stop buying them. Most company car drivers also buy them for the tax saving not to do their bit for the planet, an when this tax goes up which is inevitable they will go back to the fuel guzzlers. 

 

I think you are inherently wrong in that.

EV's are pretty expensive in the main.  I DO think people are more interested in saving the planet, plus many just like gadgets, and some like the acceleration.  Most EV's will destroy similar priced and significantly more expensive petrol cars in a race.  Not my thing but some love all that.

Edited January 13, 2023 by sidcow